User talk:Nsusa

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This user has been blocked indefinitely from editing Wikipedia.
(see: block log • contributions • page moves • current autoblocks)

Contents

[edit] Spamming of http://spam.highlandsranch.us http://spam.firsttimepregnancy.com http://spam.aboutcastlerock.com http://spam.restlesslegsreport.com http://spam.webhostingresourcekit.com

Adsense 6236715851584986
Yahoo Ad partner 1885772697

Spam sock accounts

Nsusa (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log)
75.26.161.188 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • WHOIS • RDNS • trace • RBLs • http • block user • block log)

This is the only warning you will receive. Your recent insertion of spam, commercial content, and/or links is prohibited under policy. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia.
Please do not add promotional material to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. You are, however, encouraged to add appropriate content to the encyclopedia. If you feel the material in question should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.
If you have a close connection to some of the people, places or things you have written about on Wikipedia, you may have a conflict of interest. In keeping with Wikipedia's neutral point of view policy, edits where there is a conflict of interest, or where such a conflict might reasonably be inferred from the tone of the edit and the proximity of the editor to the subject, are strongly discouraged. If you have a conflict of interest, you should avoid or exercise great caution when:

  1. editing articles related to you, your organization, or its competitors, as well as projects and products they are involved with,
  2. participating in deletion discussions about articles related to your organization or its competitors,
  3. linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam);
    and you must always:
  4. avoid breaching relevant policies and guidelines, especially neutral point of view, verifiability, and autobiography.

Accounts used solely for blatant self-promotion may be blocked without further warning.

For more details, please read the Conflict of Interest guideline. Thank you. --Hu12

I don't know what your problem is, but I added valuable content to Wikipedia and only linked to valuable resources. If you are not familiar with a topic classifying added content and links as SPAM is pretty stupid. You should verify that before you classify it SPAM. Please escalate this up to the next level editor for review. If you look at my track record you can tell that I am not a spammer and that the resources added by me are of good content and the links added by provide actual value to a reader.— Nsusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:37, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

Your contributions to wikipedia consist mainly of adding external links and is considered WP:Spam. All seem to be Adsense 6236715851584986 or Yahoo Ad partner 1885772697 related only. Please do not continue adding links to your affiliate websites to Wikipedia. It has become apparent that your account and IP's are only being used for spamming inappropriate external links and for self-promotion. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers will have their websites blacklisted. Any further spamming may result in your account and/or your IP address being blocked from editing Wikipedia--Hu12 18:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)


Just saw your reply. Please look at Abouthighlandsranch.com or Aboutcastlerock.com - these are resource sites with useful information for your visitors. What is SPAMMY about providing value? Please look at Webhostingresourcekit.com - it provides valuable resources related to web hosting - especially in regards to the added content I did. Do you know anything about that topic? Probably not. I work as a computer system administrator for a Fortume 100 company and maintain a large virtualized data center environment. That is industry knowledge and not some stuff made up. By classifying every external link as SPAM you degrade the value of Wikipedia significantly. My track record shows clearly that I am not a SPAMMER. Instead of classifying everything I added so far (and that is actual content with every link I added) you should have taken more time to review every of my contributions first. Once you start accusing a honest contributor of SPAMMING you start hurting Wikipedia's value. Today it is just me, but at one point you push away so many honste people, that Wikipedia will become obsolete. That day will be far away, but you are contributing towards that fate by making these fast and unjustified decisions. If my last contribution was wrong in your opinion it would have been easy to decline it and move it towards internal discussion. Instead you went and took out the big stick and instead of providing value you are now damaging your own reputation.

Christoph Puetz— Nsusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:05, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

By the way - if you are really SPAM fighting, why do I see so much real SPAM in WP? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secaucus%2C_New_Jersey - A thorough look at the references links to a press release that has the town name of that WP page in it?! Great Value for Wikipedia visitors. But that is probably appropriate ..... It's just a classic example of where you pick a target and instead of providing value, you take it away.— Nsusa (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC).

I hope you don't mind if I give you another example. Do a search for pregnancy and the resulting page lists a link to a website: http://www.baby-parenting.com/pregnancy/pregnancy_cal.html. Please visit the website and explain to me the value for a Wikipedia visitor? Popup ads, fly-in banners, and more ads of any kind that make the content almost invisible. If you look at the firsttimepregnancy.com link you removed, that is a resource website with hundreds of articles of unique content. Yes, there are some ads, but the information is the main content and not hidden behind banner ads, popups, etc.! The way how you remove valuable resources and leave others in there at the same time is just wrong.

Anyway - I let this go for now. Those 29 visitors total I got from Wikipedia last month are not worth the efforts to further contribute content to the project. Not I am paying the price, but the visitors to Wikipedia because of your so-called SPAM fighting. Leave the real SPAMMERS in WP and remove the good guys. SPAMMERS win. Congratulations.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsusa (talk • contribs) 19:40, 8 July 2007

Please note that the issue here is not whether the links are of value or not. This is purely about a potential Conflict of Interest. Adding your links to sites with which you are affiliated is considered spamming Wikipedia, not matter how valuable the links' content may be. The correct procedure is to add a suggestion to the Talk page for the article (with full disclosure that the site is one which which you are affiliated), asking other editors to review and add if appropriate. If the site is really useful, then it will be added. This is explained in more detail at External Links:Advertising and conflicts of interest. I hope this clarifies. Thanks. -- Alucard (Dr.) | Talk 20:00, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Also; The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that a links exist in an article doesn't prove that your Affiliate links should also exist. Your contributions to wikipedia consist of Spaming Related external links in order to promote the same Adsense/Yahoo owned sites, and in doing so you clearly have a conflict of interest (also seeAdvertising and conflicts of interest). Such a conflict is strongly discouraged. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". Continued spamming may result in your websites blacklisted and being blocked from editing Wikipedia. thank you.--Hu12 20:21, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you're saying, but to be honest - the way how you treat honest people providing content is just wrong. These threats of banning and stuff like that and including my Adsense YPN IDs that is pretty cheap and has nothing to do with this matter. What are you trying to establish? Fear? That kind of behavior is NAZI-style, because it goes away from the actual issue. I know that Wikipedia is "attacked" by SPAMMERS, but I am pretty sure you guys are smart enough to differ between somebody really SPAMMING or somebody adding content and a link occasionaly. If you treat these groups the same, you will not be doing a favor to Wikipedia, because once these kind of things happen too often, people will think twice if they spend time adding valuable content or not. You won't see any content from me anymore. Traffic was certainly not a reason for me to help out, because 29 visitors a month is certainly not a reason to add content (even if it was only occasionly). Since you guys have nofollow in place anyway, do you have an idea why I would add content and links to valuable resources?! Probably not, but there were others already in the past who thought they were the best and the only ones until that kind of behavior lead to their fall (DMOZ is just a good example of how good went to bad (and Google degrading its value from important to non-important). Good Luck.

[edit] Blocked.

I read your blog, and saw your threats to continue to spam Wikipedia. Given your unrepentant spamming, and threats to continue to further do so, I'm indefinitely blocking you from further editing. ⇒ SWATJester Denny Crane. 13:44, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More trouble for both sides -- let's avoid it

Some comments from someone who has not been involved until now:

Look, I read your blog. I understand you're mad. But if you ratchet this up further, it's just going to get tricky for both sides. Wikipedia is, as you note in your blog, very vulnerable to spamming -- we primarily rely on warnings and they hardly stop a determined spammer.

Our only truly effective defense is the Wikimedia Foundation's global Spam Blacklist, a software filter that blocks the addition of blacklisted links. This filter is used by all 250+ versions of Wikipedia (English, French, etc.) plus all other Wikimedia Foundation projects. Additionally, 1000 to 2000 non-Foundation sites (including Wikia) that also run on MediaWiki software default to using our spam blacklist for their own filtering. Finally, our blacklist is crawlable by major search engines and there are recurring rumours that Google and others may be consulting our list when compiling their own lists of search engine spammers to penalize.

As a result, backlisting has a potentially devastating effect on a domain extending far beyond just Wikipedia and we are reluctant to use it unless we see no other choice to defend against a spammer. Your blog posts have gotten attention among Wikipedia admins way beyond the editors you've interacted with so far on this page. If you push people around here into thinking you're going on a spamming war path, it may make them feel they have no choice but to hunt down all your 100+ domains and blacklist them as a pre-emptive defensive move.

That would be such a big time-waster for Wikipedia editors and admins. and it certainly would not be good business for you. I suggest we all just stand down and go our separate ways. --A. B. (talk) 15:50, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Reference:
--A. B. (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reviewing contributions; Assuming Good Faith on all sides

Reviewing your contributions, it is evident that most were not irredeemably spammy: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restless_legs_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=72197023 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Castle_Rock%2C_Colorado&diff=prev&oldid=53033620 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Highlands_Ranch_Mansion&diff=prev&oldid=39157592

This one probably merited rollback: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Web_hosting_service&diff=prev&oldid=143033625

I have unblocked you, as I assume you are willing to assume good faith on the part of other Wikipedia editors.

If you check, you will find that I was banned from DMoz a long time ago for criticizing their practices. Wikipedia is not a monolithic, secretive, corporate entity like DMoz. There are imperfect practices but assuming good faith goes a long way.

It is extremely preferable that you include external links as <ref>s instead of appending them to External Links. See Template:Cite web for how to cite websites and Template:Cite news for how to cite news articles.

Also, it is not acceptable to cut-and-paste text from other websites (as you did from http://www.restlesslegsreport.com/history-of-restless-legs-syndrome.html to http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Restless_legs_syndrome&diff=prev&oldid=72197023) for a number of reasons. If you have questions please read up on Wikipedia's copyright policy.

If you continue to submit exact cut and paste snippets without properly abiding by the GFDL (or making a proper effort to integrate the text into the existing article) you will be promptly re-blocked. --The Cunctator 23:06, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

Guys,

I want to make a couple more comments and hope that we can resolve this in a decent way for both sites. I am not a SPAMMER and I run a small business trying to support a family. I have tried to provide value and if you look at my history of changes this should be clearly visible. The links added were added in good faith and I realize that the link addition of Webhostingresourcekit.com - which triggered all this - was done in the wrong place. I was not aware of the link policy before this incident and when I was accused of spamming I felt hurt as well as I felt attacked and wrongly accused.

I like to resolve this. I don't care if you remove my content or my links or whatever. I did not do this for traffic or Google PR (you are nofollow anyway - what's the point?). But masking all my sites as SPAM is wrong - especially if I never submitted all of them in any way. You can see which ones I submitted and in which time frame. If that looks spammy then I do not know. I live in Highlands Ranch and run 2 community websites because I like where I live and are passionate about it. That is meant as an example. I tried to provide value and your visitors are losing out as the result.

I see that my blogpost raised quite a few flags and in one way that is good. Maybe this opens the way for a fair discussion where my input is accepted and not shoot down instantly like when this happened.

I am not a SPAMMER and that is what I am trying get clarified and accepted. A spammer hides is identity and covers his whois records. I don't have anything to hide as I am not a spammer. If I am such a "sophisticated spammer" as some mentioned here, I'd be a lame duck to be honest. How easy has it been to collect all my websites - can't be too difficult as I am not hiding anything. My user ID NSUSA is all over the place because I do not have anything to hide. I am registered in different forums all over the place to learn SEO - including at syndik8t.com. Not everyone who is registered there is a SPAMMER - there is also SEO knowledge and scripts for automation. Do you blame everyone who owns a gun to support crime? I doubt it.

My blog post seems to cause some concern here and as a sign of good faith I'd be willing to remove that. But I would expect someone to be willing to discuss this and to be willing to resolve this. I am not doing you a favor by writing bad stuff that makes your life more difficult. You are not doing me a favor by labeling me as spammer if I am not. I don't know how else to describe this. You are using a shotgun approach against me by listing all my sites. Is it really your goal to defend Wikipedia from further SPAM?? It does not make that impression to me by hitting innocent bystanders.

Let's get this solved. I would appreciate it if someone can take a second look and really what I am saying here and is willing to discuss.

Christoph Puetz