Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Aug

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents

danetalkers.org

I removed a link added on Great Dane to http://www.danetalkers.org. This link meets most of the criteria of WP:EL to avoid, and none of the 'should be included' items (it is a social networking site (web forum), non-encylopedic, full of original research, added by members or even owners of the site. Sure they aren't selling very much, but we aren't here to make the web forum grow. Since I removed it 5 times today, I've recieved about 40 email messages from members of the web forum complaining and demanding a response as to why I removed it. Can someone other than me back me up on the article talk page? Thanks! - Trysha (talk) 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I've added it to my watchlist. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We have tried to contact "Trysha" several times. A response is appreciated and warranted as to why a site that has been linked for a year has suddenly been targeted for removal. This is an educational site, NOT a forum. There is no advertising on this site, strictly educational and helpful information about the Great Dane. Friesianswhisper 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but such discussions should occur on talk pages like these, and not in personal emails (and especially not when there are like 40 of them to me). You have a nice web site and all that, but web site is not allowed per the External Links guidelines. What you have here is a pretty typical breed fancier web site. Every breed has them. Most breeds have quite a large number of them. There is some info about the dogs, there is a web forum, e-mail, a chat room. Some links to support your site with amazon.com purchases or by buying gift purchases. It's nice and all that, but honestly, it meets none of the criteria for "should be linked to" of the guidelines, and meets most of the links to be avoided rules including:
  • does not provide anything that is not in the article once it becomes an example of brilliant prose. That is to say, it's a nice web site and all, but the information that is there is either non-encyclopedic (dog show winner lists, dog food reviews, how-to guide, etc..), or is information that is already or should be in the article itself (provided with sources other than your web site to back it up)
  • contains unverified original research. there is a lot of information, but i don't see a single source to back any of it up. Again, nice info, but could be right, could be wrong, who is to say? Unless you cite your own sources you are still in the Original Research category and we are trusting you with blind faith. That's not Wikipedia.
  • a website that you own/maintain, straightforward enough. You cannot be neutral in judging the value of your own site, it's human nature to think that your site is the best thing out there. You cannot add your own site.
  • marginally commercial. I see links to buy books from amazon, links to buy gifts. commercial nature alone is not the sole criterion for exclusion. Many people mistakenly believe that it is.
  • social networking/web forum, the first and second links on your site are for the web forum and chat room.
  • web directory, you have a bunch of links to other sites about dogs.
Seems to me that you want the link added to attract more visitors and members of your site. Wikipedia is not a web directory, there are other more appropriate places to gather visitors. It's hard for me to find some info there, because there are numerous broken links on the site. If you want to help out Great Dane lovers or spread information about Great Danes on Wikipedia, why not put some of the information from your site that is missing on the Wikipedia article here? You would of course have to back that information up with the sources that you got it from, and not your own site - but that's the sort of thing we want. more content, less links. - Trysha (talk) 20:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Typical spammer here..

Hey everyone. Can you keep an eye on someone who keeps adding his site? I have to go to bed. HaltonRattlesnake (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) I warned him and discussed the issue on my talk page, but he has continued to add back the links. It's to some forum or whatever for Google Earth. He only adds posts by a certain user so I'm assuming he's trying to make his posts get more "downloads". It is essentially a link to a Google Earth file, which requires Google Earth (And this is my assumption, I can't even open the file.) I have to go to bed, but if he keeps adding his links could you clean up and warn him again? If I'm in the wrong here please go ahead and let me have it. :) Mrtea (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

There seem to be a lot of links to those forums, the ones I checked were not particularly informative (most threads at some point including one poster urging another to buy the premium google earth package). Nix 'em all? -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Cape Verde Spam

This user 172.159.184.222 (see contributions [1]) keeps putting the same links back on all the pages to do with Capeverde (see contributions). Half a dozen people keep reverting them but could someone arrange a block of some sort please? --BozMo talk 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

I've been involved in some of the reversions and there is more than one IP been used - 172.214.80.30 & 172.203.171.80 have placed the same links in May (I reverted those yesterday). I also placed a warning on the one you mentioned yesterday. I certainly see them as spam if only because it's the only contribution made! Given the fact that they are anon IP's I'm not sure how a block would work but I'd be interested in any updates and will happily help. Cheers -- Nigel 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice on spam please

Hi - fairly new to this so would pefer to do it right as far as I can. I took links that I considered spam from a couple of pages today including Search engine optimization. Then looking at the contribs of the IP I see they contributed (if putting links in is really that) to Corporate identity. Looking at some of the other links on that page I consider them spam - am I wrong? Equally am I right to be very suspicious of IP addresses whose only contribution is links? Thanks & cheers -- Nigel 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You're quite right. All the links at Corporate Identity were for services, products, or networking: stuff useful for people wanting help with corporate identity, not for encyclopedia readers who wanted help about corporate identity. I removed the lot of them. A good reference for this is the "What to link to" and "Links to avoid" sections of Wikipedia:External links. Thanks for bringing it up! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Appreciate the confirmation. I'll feel more secure in reverts in future - thanks and enjoy life (tho I guess a few people won't be wishing us the same!). -- Nigel 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Yeah, the SEO guys have been blatantly linkspamming/advertising for some time. In a few cases, they've even admitted it on talk pages. Please delete these when encoutered. --Alan Au 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Hyperion

A new user is adding links to hyperion. The editing may be in good faith, I'm not sure, and the site's content is borderline with respect to encyclopedic value. Suggestions? JonHarder 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Which user? I'm having trouble finding the actual edits, which makes it hard to determine whether they're good faith edits or not. My gut feeling is that they should be removed unless the editor has also added article content that makes the external link relevant/desirable for understanding. --Alan Au 23:21, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Persistent spammer

Someone has been adding links to quotesandpoem.com (linksearch link) to dozens of articles about famous people. The site consists mainly of lists of quotations, with plenty of ads, of course.

This spammer goes beyond most others, though, in using a new account for each edit: to name only a few, CameronJK, LucyK1, LorrieL, LisaJK, RubyJ, LouisJ.

I removed all the links to the site about a month ago, but they are being re-added. I just requested that the site be added to the spam blacklist. Wmahan. 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

More advice!

Not sure if this is said with a grin or not. On Resume I reverted a link as someone put in a link to a new site but left the original text. Now I see they have put the site in as a new one - does " Note: this is a genuine CV writing site, and not built just for advertising." on the site's front page allow anyone to make a decision on this one? Regards -- Nigel 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

I reverted it. It looked like it was nothing but links to commercial resume writing services. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Donald - I like to think I will continue to both live and learn. The statement on the site almost looked written for wiki to me. Cheers -- Nigel 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Lonympics

Why have you removed all my pages as Lonympics. I added legitimate pages and you have out of your way to remove every page i have done why are you going after me. This is not fair. You have not many any analysis of pages are fair you did not even state what you were doi ng you just removed every page id id. My pages are useful. Why have you removed them Why do you get pleasure from destroyiong people. Why? I want your phone number tell me who you are why are you doing this. This is not joke. You have no pitty no mercy you are cruel and vindictive, and so no tolerance of other sites that give useful information. Why are you doing this. Why do you take such pleasure from destroying people. Why? You want to destrioy me tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newuser123 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Replied on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Note to other spam-hunters: Wikipedia pages that have lonympics.co.uk links. Judge for yourself. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Never mind, I went through the list and removed them all. Not a one was appropriate for the article it was on. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Newuser123 has been indefinitely blocked for extreme personal attacks --PTSE 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Had to remove another 3 Lonympics links today which were added by an anon IP user with no previous edits. It would appear the message is not getting through --PTSE 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup. This can be expected to go on for a while. I'll check for it on linksearch once a day or so. Just caught one by another IP (62.69.37.108 (talk · contribs)), reverted because it was rather intrusive on the article in question. SB_Johnny | talk 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Would be happy to have more info on "linksearch" referred to if anyone feels like it. Thanks -- Nigel (Talk) 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Three more so far today from IP (62.69.36.153 (talk · contribs)) Nelson50 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Another 8 added and removed again. Our friend is creating new accounts to continue his work (Runscapethebest (talk · contribs), Katiedownesfancluba (talk · contribs), Agentforactress (talk · contribs) and Csinclair1 (talk · contribs)). He is also trying to (unsuccessfully) circumvent the linksearch [2] --PTSE 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Lonympics September update

After a break of a month (for his summer holiday?) Lonympics is back [3] [4] [5] [6] but is now using a geocities address to hide that fact. This is the work of banned Newuser123 who is once again creating single use throwaway usernames simply to add his links [7] [8] [9] [10]. New linksearch for reference. --PTSE 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

allaboutsikhs.com

User:Sikh historian has been adding links to www.allaboutsikhs.com to various articles. My guess is that it's an attempt to promote the site, which has ads and an amazon.com store. However, I know almost nothing about the subject so I'm not sure if I should revert the links. Wmahan. 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed links, warned the editor. Seems farily clear. Kevin_b_er 07:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, and nice work. Wmahan. 07:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Unsure?

Mobile Marketing - I realise that in a sense that is what it is all about but there are a lot of external links that look spammy to me - anyone else? Cheers -- Nigel | Talk 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Bleh that list is definitely unnecessary on such a small article. I've removed it completely --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Felt that way to me but thanks for the confirmation - cheers -- Nigel (Talk) 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

The fish spammer

In the last couple of days, an anon using IP addresses 220.226.7.157, 220.226.32.253 and 220.226.46.101 (Provider = Reliance, in India) has been adding links from various subpages of www.tipsmanual.com/How-to-fish-in-salt-water/ and www.tipsmanual.com/improve-child-reading/ to a few articles. All of the pages are loaded with Google ads. I've been reverting, but it seems to me that blacklisting www.tipsmanual.com will be the better solution. Any thoughts? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, an amateurishly-designed site full of banners and Google ads with short and nearly useless articles? Yeah, block on sight. Though, what's this blacklist you mention? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Company offering vanity articles commercially?

Not necessarily spam per se, but a company called MyWikiBiz has issued a press release offering a paid-for article writing service for companies. Looks like one to keep a close eye on. Oldelpaso 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Hah! That's just a few miles down the road for me... maybe I should ask for a job? ;-). This should be interesting, to say the least. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a MyWikiBiz (talk · contribs) user account, for what it's worth. Recent creations include The Family & Workplace Connection, Norman Technologies. First glance looks astoundingly decent. In case content gets 'defended' against differing views of unpaid editors, I'm going to draw the line though. Femto 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Looks like Jimbo has intervened on this one - see User talk:MyWikiBiz. Oldelpaso 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

db-advert, PrSpam

Topic split from above Yesterday I made a template (not "legal" by current rules, but maybe it's time to start a debate). Any thought on that as a tool for this kind of thing? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

That template would be a godsent if "officially approved". I haven't seen much precendent though for deleting entire articles that are spam, though, so I think CSD would have to be expanded to explicitly include spam. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
I've brought it up on WP:CSD for discussion. SB_Johnny | talk 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Yet another template (more kosher, I think): Template:PrSpam. This is a version of ((prod)), rather than ((db), allowing for quick tagging of "sparticles" (seem a good word?) -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
OK, looks like the coding on that one is a bit above my head, but you get the idea. It amounts to an autofilling prod for articles of this sort, which shouldn't be too controversial if I (or maybe someone else) can get the thing to work properly. SB_Johnny | talk 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Elringo and Atlas.ti

User:Elringo has added Atlas.ti, and links to it that seem just PR. I have no idea whether Atlas.ti is notable or not, so for the moment I've placed a warning on it and on his talk page. In the while, everybody's welcome to keep an eye on his contrib list. -- Sergio Ballestrero 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

The article itself might be notable enough for inclusion, but we certainly don't need all the external links to the site that he added. Good job. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Unrelated to the spam project, but I've {{prod}}'ed it as being non-notable. Most self-promotional software and company articles aren't. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've removed the prod tag because Atlas.ti is probably the leading software in its field (qualitative research - see eg: [11]). The article still reads a bit like an advert, but that can be edited. This is notable software IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Fair enough. I've added the link to the article's talk page, as I'm not sure where it would best go in the article. (I suspect it needs significant copy-editing to not read like an ad first.) Perhaps you can help with that? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
  • ATLAS.ti is a moderately well known software package in the field of qualitative research, probably about as notable as Fraps or Epi Info. That said, I've gone through and tried to strip out most of the commercial content. Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much of the original article. --Alan Au 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

General query on company pages

Well everyone has been nice to me so far! Delving round Wiki more and more, spam I can often recognise. However I'm interested in the position on articles about companies. I found this as a fully formed new page Osco & Sav-on and I stress I am not suggesting that this is an inappropriate article but I've seen a few that really do seem more corporate ad pages than encyclopaedia articles (I can hunt for more if anyone is interested). Anyone point me towards a policy (I have looked but not really found anything so far) and the opinion of those here would interest me. Thanks and regards -- Nigel (Talk) 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Have a look at WP:CORP. SB_Johnny | talk 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Gnu liscence and wikipidea GUIDLINES

This is a subject matter that is getting completely out of hand on Wikipidea at the moment. I do not for one moment condone linkspam or any type of spam but feel that many self appointed wikipedia watchdogs are beginning to miss the whole point of Wikipidea and the foundations of the GNU liscence and the wiki guidelines on which this incredible encyclopedia was built. There are no specific rules set down by ANY software under the GNU licence apart from the fact that it must be FREELY distributed and if developed then SHARED with others. There are at the moment many Wikipedia users who feel that the LAW on external links is SET IN STONE and that if there is any commercial presence on a website then it is not suitable due to the RULES of Wikipedia. I suggest that these users have another look at the Wikipedia GUIDELINES on this matter (guidelines being the operative word).

I have noticed that this project has merely 110 members that if you take a view at their collective contributions to Wikipedia show that they seem to account for more removal of external links than anything else[citation needed]. Wikipedia has millions of visitors everyday, should it be up to 110 to decide what is Spam and what is not? This scenario reminds me very sadly of a few moments in Mans history that are best forgotten.

What is the answer? Linkspam can obviously not be allowed to continue but neither can the judgment of only a few. Either Wikipedia must now take official control of any editing and remove the GNU licence or come up with a more democratic way of dealing with this issue. I welcome any comments to this note on my talk page kirk (Talk)7 August

The GNU doesn't say anything about vandalism either... --SB_Johnny | talk 13:04, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I think it's a complete mistake to think that there are only 110 people who influence what is considered spam at Wikipedia. Thousands and thousands of users add and remove links every day - and the collective judgement of all these people is what determines what's acceptable on Wikipedia and what's not. The 110 people who have added their names to the list of participants in this project don't diverge significantly from this broad consensus. The folks here are a reflection of the community at large. Deli nk 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
And the collective judgment of those thousands and thousands that add links and content everyday? Let us not forget that without many of these people Wikipedia would not exist as it truly is a collective project.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.223.28.92 (talk • contribs)
The collective judgement of people who want to promote their sites is that Wikipedia is for advertising. Well, it's not. If they want to change that, they're welcome to debate our policy on spam and change that particular part of Wikipedia's project goals. Until then, though, the collective judgement of the people who write the encyclopedia instead of just copy-pasting a link into a hundred articles is that they must go. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:11, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't think the GNU license is particularly relevant to the linkspam issue. I see the issue as preventing individuals from attempting to use Wikipedia's PageRank prominence to make money. I think most people in this project try to focus on instances in which an edit pattern suggests that an individual is trying to promote a particular site or sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:17, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Let us also remember that the general consensus at this point is that external links really do not help an article much. As I often find myself repeating, Wikipedia articles need more cited content, not more external links. As WP is aiming for a print version, ELs really offer very little to an article. There are a slew of requirements for an article to be considered a "featured article" - what's considered one the best articles written. Having non-citational external links is not one of them. --AbsolutDan (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Second opinion on carrotjuice.com

Can others please take a look at the links to carrotjuice.com ([Linksearch results) and help decide whether it's appropriate or not. An anon IP has re-added them after I deleted a few. Also, many of the other links on juice-related articles seem linkspammy to me too. Thanks. Deli nk 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Slow site even on broadband! My problem with this and others is the overposting of the links - it could be argued that there is some worthwhile content and they are not obviously selling anything much. However multiple links posted from an IP address with no other contribution doesn't strike me as good. Sorry cos it doesn't really answer the question but ... -- Nigel (Talk) 17:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been deleting those for a 2 or 3 months now... then they reappear again sometime later. If they would link to particluar parts of their site it would be one thing, but linking to the main page of "carrotjuice.com" from Grapefruit makes it look like pretty straightforeward spam in my book. I'll remove them later if someone doesn't get them first. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:08, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Good point and that makes me see them as spam too -- Nigel (Talk) 18:25, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

Definite linkfarming from the User:83.29.* range. carrotjuice.com, pineapplejuice.com, titanicons.com, dobranoc.com, czosnek.com etc. resolve to the same host IP. Delete on sight. Femto 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

All the spam mentioned above that I could find has been deleted and the pages containing them added to my watch list (watched via VandalProof). Femto, you say "etc." - is there any way I can find other links from the Use:83.29.*.* ? I'd be happy to track down more ... Brian 20:18, 7 August 2006 (UTC)btball
No idea, it just means I traversed through a few page histories (starting at carrot juice), looking at the contributions from this IP range, and stopped at some point. Here's some of its contribs links (83.29.3.124 | 83.29.17.81 | 83.29.20.40 | 83.29.38.16 | 83.29.46.171 | 83.29.75.6 | 83.29.76.113) from my browser history for what it's worth, though I think I reached most of it. Femto 11:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

UPDATE:Apparently the linkspammer has returned with a bunch of usernames: JacobJjj (talk • contribs • logs), Wikistinks (talk • contribs • logs), Downyourpants (talk • contribs • logs), Coconutseverywhere (talk • contribs • logs), BigDaddyFive (talk • contribs • logs) at least. I think all have been reverted by now. Deli nk 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

I recently created {{linksearch}} to make it easy to link to Special:Linksearch with a particular site. Let's see...
Looking through those there appears you've got them all as of this post. — Saxifrage ✎ 23:02, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Restored comment from BrettJones (talk • contribs)— Please remove the links to my websites from this page. The outsourced employee that added these links to Wikipedia has been permanently relieved of his duties. This link spam problem will not happed again. Thank you, Brett Jones

Nice to hear, however old discussions aren't removed like the way you tried, and there is no damage from merely naming a website. Femto 20:13, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you, Mr. Jones, for taking action on your end to discourage linkspamming here on WP. SB_Johnny | talk 14:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Advice on blogs

At United States housing bubble, I removed some links to blogs because they didn't seem especially relevant, and I thought they were probably added by their owners as promotion. A couple of anonymous accounts responded with personal attacks and restored the links.

I'm open to the possibility that I was too hasty in removing the links, and I am not opposed to all blog links, just self-promotional ones. Anyway, I would appreciate a neutral third opinion. Wmahan. 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

No opinion on the blogs, but the anon comment is a violation of WP:CIVIL. I'll warn the user and in the meantime, don't let it get you down; you have as much a right to edit as anyone else. Be bold! --Alan Au 23:33, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the encouragement. Wmahan. 01:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I second. Don't feel too bad. For some of the worst adverty links, they fight tooth and nail. Why? Getting their pages up on the search rankings gets them more money. Greed for money will drive them to be esspecially nasty toward you. Just keep in mind what a link to them means, and you'll realise the relationship between hostility and what is really spam. Kevin_b_er 06:33, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Just as an fyi, a quote from WP:EL about blogs in general:
| "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to. However, there are exceptions, such as in cases where the article is about, or closely related to, the website itself, or where the website is of a particularly high standard."
--AbsolutDan (talk) 01:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

User:Joecoolaug

This is a new user Joecoolaug (talk · contribs). I'm alerting to the user because of this comment on his userpage: This is the wikipedia account for joecoolaug inc. More information will be added soon. http://www.freewebs.com is our homepage. His editing interests so far seem to be Nintendos. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Apparent linkfarmer...

I'm seeing a lot of external link section edits by Site400 (talk · contribs)... don't have a lot of time to go chaseing them today, but from what I saw they were all to the same website. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

For now, I'm assuming good faith from an individual who might be trying to crosslink articles with nutrition facts. Gave a mild spam warning. Doesn't mean the links need to stay though. Femto 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
It looks like typical spam to me--all the links happen to go to the same site, which happens to have a fair amount of ads. I'm all for assuming good faith, but this seems to fit the profile of someone promoting a site. Wmahan. 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I didn't get ads, must be my browser settings again. Sure it's unneeded linkspam, I just don't want to go so far as to assume it's deliberate from someone knowing what they do. The user made earlier contributions, hadn't gotten a warning yet, nor reacted otherwise negatively. It should become clear enough if the links continue, however. Femto 11:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
All the spam links should be gone now Brian 21:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Two more persistent spammers

  • User:MMGI apparently signed up solely for the purpose of adding one tourism link to pages in south Florida.
    MMGI (talk · contribs) has been prolific. (Links to sarasotafl.org.) — Saxifrage ✎ 19:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    MMGI seems to have stopped and offered the following response in way of apology: [12] --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Multiple anon users have persitently added the folowing personal site to Bob Jones University and other pages: http://www.nobojo.org None of the anon users has done anything except add this link. Pollinator 01:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    nobojo SUMMARY: Pollinator (and others) desire to brand topic-appropriate links, placed under appropriate page headings, as "spam" because my website criticizes an institution they are loyal to. This is not our first time at the edit-war rodeo. DETAILS: To my knowledge, I am the only person who is adding the nobojo.org link to the Bob Jones University page. I have only added "nobojo.org" to the BJU page and to the "fundamentalism" page. Since my site is a critique of BJU (the world's foremost fundamentalist institution), it is appropriate in both places. I have placed the following link on the Bob Jones, Sr., Bob Jones, Jr. and Bob Jones III pages under "External Links": http://www.nobojo.org/minorities , and I have labeled it "Bob Jones Quotes" in each case. That's what the page is -- Bob Jones quotes. I have added only one other link, http://www.nobojo.org/kkk.html to the Bibb Graves page, and again it is topic-appropriate. On the BJU discussion page, I've offered to forego all these links except the one on the Bob Jones University page, which is the single most appropriate location. The Bob Jones partisans, however, seem hellbent to delete all links and brand any link of mine as spam, although they are all topic-appropriate and placed under proper headings. In fact, a review of the BJU discussion page has them blatantly conspiring to recruit a link posse to find and delete any link of mine. -- Nobojo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.35.62 (talk • contribs) 23:42, 8 August 2006
I resent being called a "Bob Jones Partisan" for following and implementing Wikipedia policy. You know nothing about my personal positions. I have no connection with BJU other than that I have done a lot of business in Greenville, and you can't turn around in that city without bumping into them. (BTW, I found them generally to be courteous and honest almost to a fault, which are badly needed virtues in the business world. But that's personal research, so you will note that I did not put that in the article.)
Your combative style, your refusal to understand and work with the Wikipedia community to improve the encyclopedia, your multiple anonymous spamlink additions, and your 'loose cannon' accusations are apt to turn away even those who are predisposed to agree with you. You need to pause long enough for a reality check. Pollinator 02:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
  • It is inappropriate to add links to your own site to Wikipedia, no matter whether they are topical. You cannot make unbiased editorial decisions on behalf of Wikipedia when the link is to your own site, because you are understandably going to believe that your site is very important. You must leave this decision to independent editors. If you insist on inserting your links contrary to the evaluation of their value by other editors, you are by definition spamming. Thanks for understanding and cooperating to preserve Wikipedia's editorial neutrality. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    nobojoIf it is "inappropriate" to add links to one's own website because such an action is deemed automatically biased without review or consideration of circumstances, then I will abide by your rules. That rule, however, enables partisans to drive out dissenters who dare to criticize orthodoxy. And this shoots your "neutral viewpoint" policy to hell. The "independent editors" of the BJU-related pages are all fundamentalists. Where did they go to get their ticket automatically punched as "independent" (e.g., objective)? And who painted the scarlet letter of bias on my butt while I wasn't looking? To illustrate: If Wikipedia's rules applied in criminal court, the many who gang-raped the one would go free. Why? Because they have more witnesses on their side. And they all tell the same story. The legal system, however, long ago figured out that you can't make a fair decision just by counting the number of partisans on one side or the other. You might actually have to trouble yourself to get some facts. (And by the way, I've NEVER posted "commercial" spam. Not even the BoJos accused me of that.) -- Nobojo —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.29.148.100 (talk • contribs) 13:49, 9 August 2006
    By "independent", I mean unaffiliated with a particular website. You are welcome to contribute gainfully to the text of the article in accordance with our neutral point of view policy. Because Wikipedia is fundamentally (as in, founded upon the idea of) collective editing and decision-making, you must respect that "majority rules" here in every way, including determining what is neutral or not, what should be in articles, and so forth. Partisans of all stripes are welcome if they can play by these rules, even partisan dissenters. Forcing a point of view to be accepted by others will be unsuccessful, however, wheather this view is that a link should be included or how a particular paragraph should read. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
    On the topic of "commercial" spam, I was warning you with an automatic template message used as part of our escalating-steps spam-warning procedure. Sorry if that caused any confusion. The template says (paraphrasing) "commercial links or links to your personal site" and "Wikipedia is not for advertising". The "or" in the first part is important, and for the latter sentence advertising covers the promotion of non-commercial sites by linking to them as well. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:38, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia-clone-plus-ads spammer

Kozuch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) is adding links to their personal site to many Wikipedia articles. The clearest evidence of abuse is that the site is merely a copy of Wikipedia with added advertising: essentially, the links being added to articles just go to a copy of the article with ads! The word "preposterous" comes to mind... — Saxifrage ✎ 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

For convenience if they continue, here is a link to the page listing all articles linking to their site: [13]. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, of course. Remove links on-sight --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeat spammer 213.165.182.233

213.165.182.233 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log), who was block on 15 July 2006 for spamming, is at it again. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Lots of interview spam

It seems there is a whole genre of sites mass-adding links to interviews with music celebrities. I'm not sure where they get their content, but I started compiling a list here.

There are two especially egregious examples that I haven't removed all the spam for yet:

  1. djbooth (linksearch), spammed by 68.21.179.217 (t c), 68.21.176.136 (t c), 68.21.173.211 (t c), 68.21.165.115 (t c), 68.21.180.233 (t c), 138.87.141.166 (t c), 138.87.141.166 (t c), and probably others
  2. aceshowbiz (linksearch), spammed by 222.124.225.125 (t c), 222.124.225.130 (t c), 222.124.225.150 (t c), 222.124.225.132 (t c), 222.124.225.133 (t c), 222.124.225.136 (t c), 222.124.226.194 (t c), and doubtless many more

The second one in particular seems to be using a new anon IP for each edit or two, which makes it difficult to separate the spam from any links that might have been added in good faith. Wmahan. 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Ugh, looks like cleanup of the latter is going to be a nice weekend project. I've posted a request to the blacklist thing on meta here: [14]. Hopefully this'll help with the spamming going forward, at least. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well at least the aceshowbiz links are all listed as "Joe Blo info" which makes it easy to spot those which are most likely illegitimate. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks to AbsolutDan for requesting the blacklist and to whoever cleaned up the rest of the djbooth links. Wmahan. 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Blacklisted aceshowbiz.com. MaxSem 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Gracias, Max --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Spotted a new one?

Found this on Italy - www.worldwide-tax.com/italy/indexitaly.asp -- and have seen similar on other countries pages today - any views? -- Nigel (Talk) 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

There's a few of them (linksearch result), probably a spammer. SB_Johnny | talk 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It looks like 62.219.167.44 (talk · contribs) added many of the links along with some other spam, so I think they should be removed. Another user who added one link and may or may not be related is 217.132.215.190 (talk · contribs). Wmahan. 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about this one...

See linksearch result. This is a commercial wiki... it has good content, but not sure why it needs to be linked to quite as much as it is. SB_Johnny | talk 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Agree - content seems ok, does irritate when the multiple links go in. I think they probably should be pruned - site could still be found via some wiki linked pages - looks like someone has some work to do (would help but strictly speaking I'm at work!). I guess a message to the contribuor too? Cheers -- Nigel (Talk) 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

New utility template

I've created {{linksearch}} to make linking to Special:Linksearch results easier—no more having to copy and paste.

Usage:

{{linksearch|*.example.com|optional link description goes here}}

Gives you:

optional link description goes here

Full usage instructions are on the template page. Enjoy! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

That's useful. Nice job! Wmahan. 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

I believe I've fixed up the template. Should work with spaces in the URL, and be properly linked on the secure server now too. Kevin_b_er 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Nice! BUT: is there any way this template could be made a bit more "dummy-friendly".. i.e. not requiring the *. to make it work? --SB_Johnny | talk 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't actually need the *. to work: that's part of what I generally look for. If you read Special:Linksearch, you can search for "example.com" or "*.example.com". The former will only get example.com links, while the latter will get www.example.com, foo.example.com, my.sub.site.example.com, and so forth. If we'd never employ the former use though, it ought to be done by the template automatically. Should I change it? — Saxifrage ✎ 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for fixing it up. It doesn't actually need the url encoded since it only ever takes a domain name (and they can't contain spaces), but it certainly can't hurt! Thanks especially for cleaning up the second-argument handling—I'm not really up with the more complex uses of template substitution and I was kinda shooting in the dark in getting that to work. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, you can. You can search for *.example.com/a path/to/a/directory, and it will work. Useful for popular hosting sites which use subdirectories. Geocities is an example. I need to tweak it a little bit more so it will subst: cleanly, but getting that to work just right will take me some time (and won't be done live). Kevin_b_er 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
By the way, does anybody know if the code for linksearch itself is available? I looked through the MediaWiki svn repository not long ago but didn't see it. Wmahan. 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
[15] Is this it? Femto 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yep. I didn't think to look there. Thanks! Wmahan. 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Well strike me blue, I did not know that. Thanks for the improvements and the lessons. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Opinions on links for 'free' software

I reverted a number of links to [16] and [17] placed in articles by Shermanmonroe (talk • contribs • count). He then posted this to my talk page. He has re-added the links to a couple of aricles after I posted the {{spam}} tag on his talk page. Beause he has proteste to me, I'm bringing this back here for other opinions. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Ok, I'll help out with this tommorrow(read: 15-20 hours from now), when I can think well enough to draft a properly reply (if noone else does before then)

  1. Self-serving links not a good idea
  2. About products to potentially buy (freeware, so you can buy the full edition)
    1. But even so, it doesn't neccessarily provide important information that would not otherwise be available in the article.

The two combined are a bad idea. Also, artitechure is far from 'open', or whatever they mean by that. If you don't order their developer or copratate, it "does not include English Language dataset" It sounds more like crippleware. The link doesn't seem very appropreate in Semantics. Need sleep before I draft a proper sounding reply to Shermanmonroe. Kevin_b_er 07:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

LOL! Looks to me like he linkspammed the articles, then text-spammed your userpage. I'll look around. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
In part I got to wiki thro the quality of info on software products without stacks of ad links. What does annoy me about the people isn't necessarily A link which might be useful but the multiple links /rant over. To me an ip address only posting multiple links seems to be in a position where they have to justify themselves. This one doesn't. Regards -- Nigel (Talk) 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

After being blocked, Shermanmonroe (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back, making the same link I warned him about the first time, and posting this on my talk page after I warned him again. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I've left him a message on his talk page trying to explain why promotional links aren't okay. Maybe he'll acquiesce on seeing that it's not just you and Mets. — Saxifrage ✎ 20:54, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. He did a note on my talk page saying that he understands now. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 02:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Spam ?

www.westlord.com on 41 articles [18]. Pyb 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

My opinion - spam (and amazon and other links on the front page of the site). Regards -- Nigel (Talk) 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Uninteresting advertising-heavy site with a bunch of personal opinions on celebrities. Likely spam, definitely does not qualify as "adding something beyond what the article can offer" in WP:EL. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Yup. Nuke 'em. SB_Johnny | talk 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Try to find the source for a few. It may be naturally spreading links. Though so far its not looking good:

Very similar range, each IP with only 1 edit. Many of them appear to be like this, and that's way too big of a range to check with some of the tricks I know.

But this one's not in range, and not formatted the same:

The similar IPs are, GOLDENLINES-ADSL with a country code of IL (Israel). And the domain, westlord.com is registered there. Starting to look like spam. I'll gather more diffs if we need to double-check more of them. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I will request that this one be added to the spam blacklist as well. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
Removed a few as well, might get around to removing the rest later --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Accountancy one

This one is quite active at present [25] on a number of pages. Site doesn't seem tooo bad but it's the multiple postings that bug me - anyone? -- Nigel (Talk) 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Looks like spam to me and I deleted them all as such. It's a .com site, the page linked to is clearly for commercial purposes and the information on the page is of no use for verification of information or notability of the subject of the article. Links to .com sites can be ok, but when I add up all the factors along with the multiple postings, I conclude SPAM. Also, several of the articles, as currently written, are not likely to survive - I've tagged them for wikification, importance and sources (and the link I deleted was not a valid source). If they're not improved I'll come back and PROD them in a week or so ... Brian 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Marriage spam?

There are many links to marriage dot about.com (linksearch results), added by a variety of anonymous IPs (216.177.251.239 (talk · contribs), 69.29.234.93 (talk · contribs), 69.29.221.172 (talk · contribs), and 207.118.3.133 (talk · contribs) are the ones I've found so far). The volume and placement of the links seem suspicious, but I don't have time to investigate further right now. Wmahan. 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

I can't see any obvious connection between the IPs. Also, *about.com links are fairly prevalent here, I think there's even a template for about.com links. Might want to let this one slide unless particular user/group is definitively spamming such links --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

History spamming

This anonymous user placed a couple pornography related links into a couple articles and then immediately removed them himself. While the articles don't have the links anymore the history of course still does, which may increase a ranking on a search engine. Could someone more experienced with spam on Wikipedia look into this? Ziggur 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Since it's only a couple, it probably isn't anything we need to be worried about. Probably just someone experimenting. I've left {{test-self}} on their talk page, if they come back hopefully they'll get the message --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
P.S. AFAIK, search engines go by the current copy of an article, so what's in the history shouldn't be reflected in the rankings --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

More second opinion requests

(section reorganised by SB_Johnny | talk 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC), for easy reading)

Looks like you scared him/her off, actually. I'm sure it wasn't your intent, but the newbie feels bitten I think. Then again, the first two edits were adding the same website to 2 different articles, so it's probably a case of non-persistent spamming. Keep an eye on the links though, in case a sockpuppet pops up.--SB_Johnny | talk 14:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
"the first two edits were adding the same website to 2 different articles" - no they were not the same website - one was a web designer directory, one was a graphic designer directory as per appropriate article.- Vexcom (talk · contribs)
  • Graphic design/Vexcom: Link is not about graphic design or web design, but insted, about people who sell such a service. From WP:EL's Links normally to be avoided: "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, with objectionable amounts of advertising, or that require payment to view the relevant content, colloquially known as external link spamming." The fact is, do we need to know people who design websites? No. Its no different from a list of shoe salesmen on Shoe. Kevin_b_er 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
If you do not need to know who does graphic design then why have a list of "notable graphic designers" and "professional organizations of graphic designers" on the article - you have 10 links that are essentially "people who do design graphics" so if the answer is NO as you stated - then you need to remove a few more links from that page.
The Professional associations that are listed charge designers for registration. This falls under "Links that are added to promote a site, that primarily exist to sell products or services, that require payment to view the relevant content (membership)."
The directory of graphic designers I added does not charge a fee to join or view content. Yes there are ads for web design and graphic design - its a directory of designers - if I charged all 15,000 members yearly dues I could take down all the ads and retire.
Lets look at the professional organization links that are deemed appropriate:
Designers love Adobe products - Adobe's ad is on "AIGA, the professional association for design in America"
Need some ink cartridges? try "The Association of Registered Graphic Designers of Ontario" (RGD Ontario)
Need design books or SEO services? try "Graphic Artists Guild"
How about Sappi design services? official sponser of "International Council of Graphic Design Associations"
Need some web tools from funcntion fox? try "Society of Graphic Designers of Canada - GDC"
The other associations do not have ads because you have to pay membership dues to join so they do not need advertising dollars to pay their staff and run their website. This makes them as I said above An organization that primarily exist to sell products or services. The fact is that graphic designers want to be listed on the site because it helps them find design work - graphic design is a career - every example of design on the article is a commercial product - one that a designer was paid to create.
Shoe ?
The comparison to shoe salesmen is weak at best (even though you do have a list of shoe manufacturers) shoe salesmen are not cobblers, they are not shoe designers, so of course you would not want a list of shoe salesmen - The site is not a list of graphic design salesmen - it is a directory of graphic artists - just like the "professional associations"
Maybe I should rename my site "the professional directory of freelance graphic designers" - then would it be ok for me to add? The only difference is the name - I understand you have spam problems on wikipedia - I despise spam - but these rationalizations for the removal of the link are too weak for me to ignore -
in my opinion you either have to allow the link or remove the other ones -
--vexcom |talk
"Allow or remove the rest" It's the same arguement offered when an article on wikipedia goes up for deletion "But if my article gets deleted, you must delete all the other similar ones too!" Still wouldn't be appropreate, as the external links are for important info we need to convey, not about people who do graphic design. Also, if other links are inappropreate, we'll get to those eventually. Feel free to remove inappropreate links from wikipedia, but don't disrupt wikipedia to prove a point. Now then, its not a professional organization. Look at the IEEE, a professional society of electrical (and related) engineers. The link you added is a just a list of graphic design people. What important information does it convey to wikipedia as an encyclopedia? The answer is none. It conveys no important info other than a list of people. It may be free, yes, but that doesn't matter. Simplying renaming it to a 'professional organizaton' is bunk because you never ment it in the first place. Last, "Yes there are ads for web design and graphic design - its a directory of designers - if I charged all 15,000 members yearly dues I could take down all the ads and retire." You could could take down all the ads and retire? So it is a link to your website? That violates another principle of external links, one on using them for self-promotion. Kevin_b_er 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Doityourself: On the fence here. I lean toward good, unless someone wants to uncover someone adding links en masse. Kevin_b_er 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Untraveledroad: The hell?! Look at the contributions from KelvinSmith (talk · contribs), who seems to have been adding this link to articles since 2004. And look at the title image for the website: Kelvin Smith's Untraveled Road. This guy's been quietly spamming since 2004. They appear to have 235 edits or so. Given this, I'm pretty dumbfounded noone has seen this yet. Its self-promotion, but the website isn't that bad, I guess. I dunno. I'm very surprised its not been noticed before. Also that IP has the same edit summary style as Kelvin, so its likely him. Kevin_b_er 03:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Umm, he's been blanking spam complaints on his talk page. Isn't that considered vandalism? JonHarder 13:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Doesn't look like vandalism. If there were warnings, it would be vandalism, but the comments on that page were conversational, aparently not using the ((spam)) or similar tags. Creepy, but not "illegal". --SB_Johnny | talk 14:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Untravelled Road

So what to do about the untravelled road links? They're clearly self-promotion. The author is even keeping them up to date. I'm a bit nevous about removing that many at once though. Not sure its proper. Need more opinions and such. Kevin_b_er 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, it violates WP:EL "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." - I'll go delete the links ... Brian 03:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)btball
They're all deleted now (and on my watchlist in case they come back) ... Brian 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)btball

Just a suggestion

When adding a link to a particular user, the most useful way to do it is by using the form {{user|USERNAME}}, which, if you were talking about me would look like this: SB_Johnny (talk · contribs). That way we can move straight to the talk or contribs (whichever is relevant), without having to go to the userpage and clicking through form there (I.e., don't use the form [[User:SB_Johnny]], which often is even more annoying because it leads to an edit age when the link is red. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Can you add color to {{user|USERNAME}}?

-- vexcom (talk · contribs)

No. It's not really used for signing your own comments, just for when you're mentioning a user. If you want help adding color to your sig, ask me on my talk :). --SB_Johnny | talk 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

ARKive.org

Animal articles on Wikipedia are rapidly gaining links to ARKive.org. While the organisations aims are admirable, should we be linking so heavily to a site asking for doantions? I tend to remove the links if we have pictures on wikipedia or in the commons and leave it if we don't. What do other people think?--Peta 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Many many links seem to have originated from 195.188.139.172. Digging up more sources of who inserted it will help determine the spam-level of it. Kevin_b_er 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
427 links - don't think the word excessive would be too stong in my view? -- Nigel (Talk) 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I'd say case-by-case for that... the site is well-referenced if nothing else. You might want to bring this up at WP:TOL to see if they're actually adding anything to the articles, or are just linkfarms.--SB_Johnny | talk 11:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
I asked them here. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Customer opinion sites

What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?

For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines (all links). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link:

  • 2: "Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources"
  • 9: "Blogs, social networking sites (such as MySpace) and forums should generally not be linked to unless mandated by the article itself."

I wonder if there's a parallel here with the WP:BLP policy which is applied to biographies of living people... And has recently spawned a Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises proposal?

Thanks/wangi 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

for me it's the sheer quantity again - 270 links? Or is this just me (today probably <g>) -- Nigel (Talk) 08:04, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to see all of those links deleted. They are opinions, and tehy don't contribute anything neutral or encyclopedic to the articles. -- Adz|talk 09:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Holy crap! 270 links?!?!? To a survey/blog site? Yeah, I'd say take them off, and maybe blacklist it.
OTOH, there was some interesting debate about this on the talk page of flashlight a month or three ago that bears reading on review sites in general. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:02, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd opinions - provalusa

Ok - I reverted a number of these the other day [26] and placed a spam warning on the user talk page Bblanchard (talk · contribs) (he deleted but I've commented on it). He is of the opinion it is not spam (his comments are on his talk page). In view of that fact that I was involved in the original deletion I felt I should bring it to this page for other opinions. My view hasn't changed (the fact that other sites are on the pages only means I know what I'll do when I get a minute) - its spam in my mind but I know I shouldn't be judge jury and executioner! -- Nigel (Talk) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's spam and I left a message explaining why on their talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
Would agree. Bad form to have edits centered around promoting a particular website, including creating dictdef entries which describe the activity of the website. Those dictdefs created may need to be sent to the deletion process later as well. I'll prod them after a little while. Kevin_b_er 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
Meant to get back before - thanks for the comments --Nigel (Talk) 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback. I appologize if my link is considered spam by wiki readers.

Please remove this link as well as the other "Common Software" links. Each of these is a similar spam. I have added Real estate appraisal, Appraisal Management, and Appraisal process to my watchlist. If i notice links on these pages, how do I go about reporting spam?

Bblanchard 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd opinion - Audio mastering

See for yourself on the history of Audio mastering. To me it looks like several competing spammers, but maybe I'm too sensitive? See also User_talk:66.214.253.155 and the contributions of 82.153.8.89 (talk · contribs), 66.214.253.155 (talk · contribs), 82.152.202.136 (talk · contribs), Voy7 (talk · contribs). -- Han-Kwang 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

for me the convincing issue the the multiple attempts to put the links in. The two on the page I went too both seem to be selling as much as offering any information. Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

2nd opinion - Nutritional value template

I made this template and on request of an other user I added a link to the source that I most often use when I add the template to articles. I'm not affiliated with the USDA, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate that that site is linked to so many times (potentially 100s of times) -- Han-Kwang 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

The USDA doesn't need any help from Wikipedia for promotion; I can't imagine it would be a problem. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Where else would you get the information? A website with ads? Needs a source, might as well make it a government one. Kevin_b_er 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

WillyK999 External Link spamming

See contributions. The links all seem to go to http://tesla.liketelevison.com (linksearch) which claims to let you download movies, tv, etc. after you pay and register. Akriasas 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Reverted. Thanks. JesseW, the juggling janitor 04:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Spam; paid-for sites are not appropriate. Han-Kwang 08:28, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I disagree that commercial sites are inherently unworthy. Some of the most respected media in the world is commercial in nature (e.g., The New York Times). Sites must be evaluated on merit, not on whether or not they're commercial. -MichaelBluejay 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
Not inherently, but in this case it doesn't pass the requirements in WP:EL#Sites_requiring_registration. Han-Kwang 18:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I've gone and removed what I could find. Also a quick reply to Michael Bluejay: the problem is not that the host is commercial, the problem is that the content is either not free (unless you register) or not accessible before going through an objectionnable amount of advertising. This is standard and well-accepted policy. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Pascal.Tesson (talk • contribs) 10:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Billingshurst

I guess this isn't spam in a sense but is a list of "eating out places" & "pubs" ok for wiki? If I take it out there will not be a lot left but I'm not sure if it's what I expect? --Nigel (Talk) 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, judgements such as "great beer" certainly don't belong here. The rest of the info is more appropriate for wikitravel. I suggest to summarize them as "seven pubs and 12 restaurants" or something like that. Han-Kwang 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

User:GSI.Secretary

This new user, who appears to be the secretary of the Genealogical Society of Ireland has written a couple of articles about the society and its gazette, and already his article Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, taken from the society's website has fallen foul of copyvio. He has also added links to the society website to a number of articles. It seem s like the innocent actions of a newbie, and i have left him a message. What should be done with the articles/links? Lozleader 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

  • If you think the articles are salvageable, I would recommend listing them on regular (5-day) AfD, notifying the author, and suggesting a re-write. --Alan Au 23:06, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Findarticles.com links added by me

I'm starting a project to mine http://findarticles.com (a very large archive of magazine articles, may of which are free in full text); I describe the project in a bit more detail here: User:JesseW/findarticles.com. As it will involve adding many external links to the same web domain, I thought I'd mention it here for comments and thoughts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

When possible this should be avoided. In many cases, links to the original articles are available and these are always preferable I think. Second choice if the original link is unavailable is the link to some free archive and third to something like findarticles.com which is a commercial site. I don't know that there's any good reason to add multiple links to that particular site. Pascal.Tesson 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

You are entirely welcome to change any links to articles you can find at original sites or non-comercial archives to those copies (although it would probably be best to maintain the other URLs somewhere, in case of link rot). I haven't found most of the material at findarticles elsewhere, but I'd be delighted if you can. I presume you don't object to the addition of the sources, just to using findarticles when something else is available? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • I agree that the original articles are preferred, but the findarticles text is also useful when the original isn't available. Of course, I would prefer that the links only show up in places where the source text contributes to the article, but that's just me. In any case, thanks for the heads-up regarding your project. --Alan Au 23:11, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
I assume that in instances where this is used, that there will be a proper citation of the original article, with the findarticles.com link serving as the web link within the cite? If so I find that perfectly ok, assuming of course the original is not available online. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Heads up on a possible dodgy site

Not spam as such but found this one (http://iloveahvaz.xlphp.net/) DON'T click without reading the rest! According to McAfee SiteAdvisor - "Our analysis indicates that this site may be designed to trick you into submitting your personal or financial information to online scammers." Thought people should be aware of it. As a ps - how would it be best to "show" such a site in a public forum? Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

The page contains a refresh to a framed subpage which escapes from the original address, McAfee presumably (over)reacts to that. Security software companies have no reason to hold back occasional unspecific alerts showing that their product is worth its money and works. Unless there is other evidence (like malicious JavaScript, won't check or run that), I'd assume this site is only some ad-based hosting service. Femto 12:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Organic light-emitting diode

I removed some links from organic light-emitting diode recently, which made a few of the website owners unhappy. One agreed to request that a neutral editor add their link on the talk page, but two other site owners are re-adding their links, even though I said on the talk page that I would not object if the links were approved by a neutral editor not affiliated with a website. Wmahan. 19:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I did some cleanup on the page. Han-Kwang 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, that's much better. Wmahan. 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

User:DavidN2 again

DavidN2 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log) has been blocked before, and is at it again. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, he's on a 48 hour block now, we'll see what happens when it expires. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Also using 65.33.127.33 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · block user · block log). Thanks/wangi 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

The usual 2nd opinion stuff

I took a few of these out earlier [27]. Observerite (talk · contribs) - only contributions were these (and in bold!). I took the view it was spam (& still do). However some of the links have been reverted by another editor with the comment that it's a "good guide". Views & thanks --Nigel (Talk) 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I could live with that link. This sounds like a perfect case of WP:EL's point 4 of what should be linked to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article. Just my 0.02 though. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
OK & opinion appreciated - thanks --Nigel (Talk) 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Back River

I've been reverting this as spam but thought I would get a second opinion. Is the whole thing just an advert for the guys canoe trips or just badly written material? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

It's essay-ish, to start. Second, it's unsourced (and thus subject to removal by anyone who wishes), let's see what else.. oh, fails proper tone, oh yeah and just badly written as you say :) --AbsolutDan (talk)
Thanks. Perhaps I sould phone the guy and complain. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 01:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

84.136.71.53

I'm just leaving so could someone check this guys edits. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

He/She appears to have switched from the english version to the german version of that panorama website. Kevin_b_er 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Advertising: Breakthrough & Breakthrough: Building Human Rights Culture

I don't know if this quite files under the heading of 'spam', but these two pages appear to be advertising. I'll let you take the necessary actions. Black-Velvet 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorted Breakthrough. Think someone should prod (?) the other but not got the time at present. Cheers --Nigel (Talk) 12:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Done. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Dan - it was lunchtime (here!) & I didn't have the time - cheers --Nigel (Talk) 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
Anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Disc makers opinion

OK not sure about this. It's been speedy delete and was removed, it's been prod'ed (by me) and it was removed, it's been blanked & I reverted it. It does get quite a lot of google hits. I was about to AfD it but I really am not sure enough - wiser brains please. The recent edit/improvement is the only contribution of the editor. Thanks --Nigel (Talk) 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I'd say send it to AfD. Since it's a discussion and not a death sentence, an AfD is an good venue to discuss and determine whether the company warrants an article. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)