Talk:Brake bleeding

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Much of text is copied from the first link (http://www.stoptech.com/tech_info/wp_howto_bleedbrakes.shtml). Rmarquet 15:50, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe it's the other way around, especially given that link section that begins "wp_". Remember, Wiki content is free for others to scrape/reuse/repurpose.

Atlant 17:41, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Almost all of the text on the article page, including the link to the Stoptech site, was added in 1 minute, at 21:11 15 August 2005. Take a look at that revision and the next older one - it really does look like a Copy & Paste job. Rmarquet 00:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, the page linked to by the first link lists a copyright date of 2004. This could certainly have been placed there at any time, but along with the other information here, I am inclined to believe that this Wikipedia page contains a copyright violation. 74.132.229.172

[edit] Teaser page?

So, let me get this straight: A page that offers detailed directions on bleeding brakes, with over a dozen pictures, broken into 8 steps, describing multiple techniques... is a "teaser page"? If it had very little content itself I'd agree it's useless, but that's an in-depth guide if I've ever seen one. Not even the Chiltons' manuals have quite as much detail as this page: [[1]]. I definitely disagree with the removal of this link by "I already forgot", and I don't see anything in WP:EL that makes it ineligible for inclusion (I have nothing to do with that website). Rmarquet 19:53, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The content is not the issue here, the intention is. The user creates an account and does nothing but add links to discount-trailer-parts.com. Its a simple case of link spamming and EL:WP is very clear on this. It wasn’t a very good link anyway so instead of fighting over it I'll add a similar link with better detail that isn’t a product of link spamming. --I already forgot 20:28, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. I haven't checked the user's other links, but I'll take your word for it. But I think there's a general issue there with WP's policy that even someone that's link spamming can actually occasionally include links that are useful. ("Even a broken clock is right twice a day" - that sort of thing.) The new link you added doesn't really offer anything over what is already on the Wikipedia page, at least in the bleeding directions, but it does have a lot of information in related issues. Rmarquet 15:49, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

Check the contribution log for User talk:Johnnymac99, I haven't accurately counted but this user has added about 20 spam links for discount-trailer-parts.com and has been warned with a level3. If this user continues link spamming then discount-trailer-parts.com will be black listed and it won't make a difference if the links are truely valuable since they won't be operational. Now there is a strange moral dilemma: Johnnymac99 has added (copy-n-pasted?) some valuable content into Wikipedia. Should link spamming be allowed in the case when you also contribute? The answer is NO but that is a super fuzzy area I don't even want to get into, let's leave that one for the philosophers. (Requestion 22:00, 24 February 2007 (UTC))