User talk:Aoidh

@Aoidh no doubt you are doing good work removing spam, but I am currently slowly working on 2 concepts:

1. Getting the Microphone blocker page to appear that this technology does exist and function. The https://www.hart4technology.nl/en/the-mic-lock-the-ultimate-protection-against-microphone-hacking/l67c3 explains these concepts. If you can recommend a better page that can be added to the Microphone Blocker#External links section, please either add it or let me know so I can.

There is US patent 10,241,750 dated 26 Mar 2019 - so they do exist! Where should I add this to this Microphone blocker page (see. www.hart4technology.nl/userdata/file/4892_20240504200619_Mic-Lock_Patent_US_10_241_750-EN.pdf)?

2. To add a new but (too simple) Computer security product that does not appear to exist in Wikipedia. The edit on that page and the reference to www.hart4technology.nl/en/port-blockers starts to explain that concept. I hope to add a Port Blockers page to start to explain that technology that is vital to physically protect computers from close proximity covert attacks. So the question I have: should you read the www.hart4technology.nl/en/port-blockers page or is the www.hart4technology.nl domain added to you automatically mark as spam list?

With regard to 1 you have reinstated a dead link https://mashable.com/2018/05/24/nope-microphone-blockers-sale/ . Can you please let me know how this should be marked? I understand that if it was a cited reference i should be kept? Again can I have your advice on External Links. Should they:

1. be relevant to the complete page?
2. be readable?
3. be for rather than against the existence of the Page? "/nope-microphone-blockers-sale/" appears to indicate it was saying Microphone Blockers are not for sale.

(for full disclosure I do some paid work for Hart 4 Technology, but these initiatives are:

1. to help members of the public stop being listened to big tech so they can monetise our (private) conversations.
2. as a patriot to help prevent foreign and criminal BadUSB attacks on possibly vital computers.

I look forward to your advice so we can improve this corner of Wikipedia together.

Thanks (RobThinks (talk) 22:32, 6 March 2026 (UTC))

@RobThinks: Apologies for the delayed response. First and most importantly, please read WP:PAID thoroughly and ensure you are complying with disclosure requirements. The issue is that the link (which can still be accessed via , though should probably also be removed) was replaced with a promotional blog, which per Wikipedia:External links#Links normally to be avoided should not be added to the list of external links (e.g., points 5, 11, and 14). With regard to using that manufacturer as a source, Wikipedia articles should be based on independent sources to ensure a neutral point of view when discussing the topic. If the only sources for a topic are manufacturers selling that product, that product likely does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards (e.g., Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Products and services). - Aoidh (talk) 23:55, 14 March 2026 (UTC)

Thank you, I am learning all the time and have added a WP:PCD to a new User:RobThinks page. as the guidelines on Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure

With regard to the Microphone blocker page I know that this technology exists and this page needs to reflect this. The Patent needs to be on this page it is central. I have search the manufacturers website and it is not there so unless you can find a better citation I intend to re-include it again. I don't consider that this Patent citing contravenes Wikipedia:When to cite#Challenging another user's edits and the first section clearly says ""opening a discussion on the talk page"" which I will happily do. Also as [[User:GuccizBud] has helpfully indicated more citations are needed an this patent is a good official source. Unless you can find and insert better citations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by RobThinks (talk • contribs) 23:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Hi, Arbitration Committee,

I'm seeking an advice because I keep putting ab approved photo on the article which is List of Stars on the Floor episodes but one of the administration by the name of JJMC89. The title card if the Stars on the Floor is an approved photo which I do not understand why the administrator keeps on deleting it twice already.

I hope you can look into this because I don't understand why an approved photo needs to be deleted on the article for the List of Stars on the Floor Episodes

Kindly advice and thanks --Fanblade81 (talk) 11:41, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

@Fanblade81: I am not the Arbitration Committee, but I am one of its members. However, this is not a matter for the Arbitration Committee, so any advice I would give would be in my capacity as an editor. As the edit summary mentions, Wikipedia:MCQ would be the best place to ask your question, and it would be a good idea to clarify what you mean by "approved photo". By whom was it approved? But to give a general answer, the image does not provide any aid in understanding the article's subject (giving no contextual significance per WP:NFCCP), and the image is already in use at the Stars on the Floor article. To respect copyright, it needs to be used as little as possible, and it's not necessary on the List of Stars on the Floor episodes article. - Aoidh (talk) 09:29, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

@Aoidh, alright. Thanks! Fanblade81 (talk) 13:20, 17 March 2026 (UTC)

Your feedback is requested at Talk:Battle of France on a "History and geography" request for comment. Thank you for helping out!
You were randomly selected to receive this invitation from the list of Feedback Request Service subscribers. If you'd like not to receive these messages any more, you can opt out at any time by removing your name.

(replacing Yapperbot) SodiumBot (botop|talk|contribs) 22:30, 23 March 2026 (UTC)