Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Sep

This is an archive of past discussions about Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam. 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.

ZipCodeStats.com

Kinda busy at the moment - any thoughts on this? Special:Contributions/61.246.151.237 --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

It's been cleaned up - thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, if anyone has questions or comments about ZipCodeStats.com or how it will be contributing to the Wikipedia please feel free to contact me directly, since I am the guy who created it and I have control over how we will be contributing to the Wikipedia. We have no intention of Spamming the Wikipedia, we just intend on contributing information to the Wikipedia that we have data for. That would be the ~50K US cities and towns in our database. We may also create data for ZIP Codes if it seams appropriate. Just a little about ZipCodeStats.com… It is a free/non-commercial information site (and that is not expected to change!) that gathers information from various government departments, integrates that data, and represents it in a “human” digestible form. We currently have enough data that if you printed out our site, it would circle the earth 1.5 times (and it is growing). I DO run Google ads on the site out of respect to Google, since I use there maps at no cost to me (plus who knows, it might someday cover the cost of the servers). Hope this helps clear everything up – thanks! Also if you would like to find out more about me, you can go to my site vanvleit.com --Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and links don't even contribute to the actual content. Placing your site in 50000 articles sure would fall under my definition of spamming, and it would be quite a promotional gain for you. Just don't. Femto 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree, we should only contribute relavant "unique" content (if we have it) to relavant pages/area, and should not post links to the External Links area. Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Would we accept their content on the relevant pages, rather than just links there? It seems like a great way for someone to keep up the information in the Wikipedia. I agree that we shouldn't have a link to zipcodestats.com on all the pages that have to do with that zip code. Anca 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Their terms of service expressively prohibit derivative works and redistribution, large-scale citation of their database would not be compatible with Wikipedia's license. In any case, if some particular data is needed in the articles, it's always preferable to directly cite primary sources such as governmental census bureaus (WP:RS). Femto 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

There we go then. If we can't use their content, and we can point users at the primary data, there's no reason to point to ZipCodeStats.com. Anca 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

US Census only goes to 2000, zipcodestats spans from 1969 - 2006 (though most of it is not public yet). As the author of zipcodestats, if I add some helpful information to the Wikipedia...that is my desision. I have 4 million pages of the stuff. Lets not get spammophobic about this eather...otherwise the core concept behind the wikipedia will be lost. Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A few comments:

I honestly appreciate your desire to help Wikipedia. If you do choose to contribute content rather than links, and you have support for the idea, it would be welcome.
The specific issue of adding zip codes to city articles has already been discussed, and so far, rejected; see Ram-Man's talk page. As you probably know, zip code divisions generally don't correspond to city boundaries.
You aren't the first editor with no significant edit history wanting to add links in the name of the "core concept behind the wikipedia". However, there's a consensus that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
I just some removed some earlier mass-adding of the links by 61.246.41.130 (talk · contribs) and Rdplindia (talk · contribs), since there isn't any consensus in favor of the links yet. Wmahan . 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Wmahan, I think "rejected" is bit of a strong term for what I read...busy is probably a better term:

"I had planned to eventually add zip codes to the articles automatically. Perhaps some day I will. But nothing is to stop others from adding information in the meantime." --Ram-Man's talk page

...though thanks for pointing out the Ram-Man's talk...that was very helpful. I just went there, read the talk...and posted my two cents worth and hopefully helped a little. The issue is more one of ambiguity across ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA), US Postal ZIP Codes, city boundaries, and MSA boundaries. I understand the issues all to well believe me...go the ZipCodeStats and look up any city or town and you will see what I mean...this is a tiny issue in comparison to others that I have had to wrestle with on that project...this is sort of one of my areas of expertise now. And I have already done the work that Ram-Man said he may not get around to till "2010ish". -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Additonally, I was the one who added the "ZIP Codes" with proper referancing to Los Angeles and that was deleted by Wmahan as a "spam link"(61.246.41.130 (talk · contribs)), I just forgot to login...I think this is contributing to the confussion on this...sorry, my bad. So let me be clear that I am looking to add the ZIP Codes for the cities NOT external links. -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

So I have waited 10 days, and I take it there are no longer any issues with us adding relevant content in an appropriate way? If I do not hear from anyone about this within the next few days, we will proceed with our "non-spam" contributions. In addition I will be remove us from the spam list (since you can always add us back in). -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 14:39, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Can you give us an example of what you would contribute as a 'non-spam' contribution? (also you should login) - Trysha ^(talk) 21:50, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but after visiting the WikiProject_Cities ^(talk) discussion, I think this conversation might be better posted there. -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 15:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Let me be more direct - what do you consider an "apropriate way" - just the zip code as 02141,02143? Or are your planning on referencing back to your site ( 02141,02143 ) - Trysha ^(talk) 22:42, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Either way...whichever...I really do think this should be discussed on the WikiProject_Cities ^(talk) page though (at the bottom of the page). The thing you should know is, I intend on using the Wikipedia city descriptions on ZipCodeStats, so I would like to give back in some way (with or without source citations). When I use the Wikipedia's city data on ZipCodeStats, I will cite the appropriate page in Wikipedia, but it may not be necessary to site back to us if the consensus is not to (though the Post Office should be cited as a minimum), though it might make maintaining the data harder on Wikipedia editors who want to fact check or update from the source of compilation (especially as we recompile and verify the data). Also, ZipCodeStats is still in Beta (really the 1969-2006 Census data is the Beta), but the city ZIP Code data is accurate and a worthy contribution to the Wikipedia. Which brings me to another issue. I know that most people here think that ZipCodeStats is a “public domain information intermediary”. But that is not correct, our data is “calculated” from 1969 to 2006 (Census, BEA, HUD, etc.) and is NOT just a regurgitation of the 2000 Census. -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 17:325, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Where2golf.com query

Hi All. I took some links placed to this site out the other day but the poster has asked if she can place them again. I've made my point as I see it promoting the particular website (& being the only contribution) [1] - user - Suzanne@where2golf.com (talk · contribs). Any one care to comment (&/or to talk page). Thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 10:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right, and it looks like someone else already backed you up on the talk page. Wmahan . 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks all - I felt I was right but as she appealed it was worth a check. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

atspace / awardspace travel spam

Links go to subdomains hosted at atspace.com, atspace.us, awardspace.info, awardspace.us.

Targets include Lake Tahoe, Holden Beach, North Carolina, Costa Rica, Big Bear Lake, Great Bear Lake, The Poconos.

Femto 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Second opinon (Solomon Key)

Can I get a second opinion on an external link? Another editor to the article The Solomon Key and I went a couple of rounds of revert-the-spam. He then posted a cordial message on my talk page asking for clarification. After my response, he has "massively improved" the page, and would like to re-add it. To be honest, I'm not sure excalty what changed, but since he's really been polite, I'd like to ask for a second person to review the site out of fairness. The conversation and the link are here. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your analysis. It is basically a syndicated Google news search for Dan Brown with a whole pile of adverts added. The whole thing seems to be promotion for a poker site. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I've had a number of link adders try to make "deals" with me (e.g., "if I do this, can we keep the link"?) I tend to believe that the more someone cares about the inclusion of a link to their site, the less likely it is that it's appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Agreed with Jamie. It's becoming almost expected now that whenever I revert spam, I'll get a message on my talk page a)asking for clarification, b) explaining just how wonderful the link is, c) whipping out their credentials and trying to intimidate me, d)crying "well what about the other links, they're the same!, or e) all of the above. Spam is spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll share a bit of a fun one. Founds loads of spam in tourist resort type pages in my area. Cleared plenty and left messages. Got one from a reg user "asking for clarification" so quoted [WP:EL] & [WP:SPAM] and asked if he had any specific concerns to let me know tho nothing he had done was apprently affected. Then wondered about his edit record ..... I'll come back to you if I can't sort it myself (but if he hadn't mailed me I would not have noticed!). Enjoy the weekend --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank y'all very much for the feedback. I didn't really think there was much to it, but since they were at least somewhat cordial, I wanted to get some more eyes on it. It's usually not a problem when I get the really confrontational types... :) Kuru ^talk; 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

orcmagazine

I discovered 48 links to this online magazine; about 30 were Orc-related, and the remaining 20 were to this link on "Googling your race." I deleted some of the Orc-related ones and all of the "Google your race" ones. Most of them were added weeks or months ago, but it's something to be on the lookout for if someone decides to attempt to reintroduce them. I haven't deleted all of the links in Orc-related articles; I figure it at least makes sense to have a link in Orc, since the site is focused on Orcs and may be notable in the...um....Orc-appreciation community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I still see these as quite spammy. I use a HOSTS file and quite a bit of stuff does not come up on the page so draw your own conclusions from that! Secondly is this ""Play Orc" specializes in sexy pictures for the discerning Orc male. It's packed with erotic illustrations of the most attractive Orc maidens and non-Orc slave girls from every corner of the Orc empire. "Play Orc" also contains thought-provoking articles that no one reads." (I can't believe I just quoted that) really necessary to orc appreciation. Anyone thinks I'm wrong I'll happily step back but it is spammy to me - 1 or 2 links just maybe, 20 odd?? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I see these have been tidied a bit. I've just taken some dupe ones out too. Nigel ^(Talk) 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Neopets

Someone might like to take a look at links for www.neopets.com. There is definately some spam linking going on for this site. Some of it is just over-enthusiasm, but I've also reverted examples like this. Its fan-dom territory so removing them is likely to be a bumpy ride, however we shouldn't have a couple of hundred links to this site. -- Solipsist 09:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Links to private railway site - further opinions please

Reviewing tourism links after finding quite rich veins of spam I came across links to this Lynton and Barnstaple railway railway site. I also looked at links to other similar local organisations such as Dartmoor railway & South Devon railway & West Somerset railway. My view is that Wiki would be well served by one or two external links to this site with the remainder of the pages having relevant internal wiki links to pages that are available rather than more than 30 as it stands.

The person I was in touch with has said that they are reluctant to instantly remove all those links at the behest of just a single wikipedian. I would appreciate opinions on this and will place a note on the talk page to let the person (Lynbarn (talk · contribs)) know of my posting. Thanks & regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Nigel et al. One way to clear this issue may be to create an article specifically for the current L&BR Company, and include wikilinks to that new article in the transclusion, rather than the external link which seems to be the cause of the majority of reported links, and which I have used to link the different articles related to historical and current aspects of the railway. There is already an article related to the L&BR Trust, a registered charity, which is a separate - although closely linked - legal entity. regards, Lynbarn 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the above. Thirty external links to a commercial site looks like spamlinking to me...I think 29 of the articles should just have internal links to the L&BR article and that article can have the single external link to the commercial site. Brian 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)btball

Technically, this link is to a charitable, community-based, non-profit site, rather than a commercial link, but I have, as I suggested above, created a new article - Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Company Limited - to which the transcluded link, in Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth now connects. This has reduced the number of apparent spam links to less then nine, and I will remove others as time permits. I trust this action will meet with your approval, and this matter can now therefore be considered closed. regards, Lynbarn 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

just three links remain. Lynbarn 13:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the current situation is certainly an improvement. The article itself could use some more sources in order to pass WP:V, and a bit of a tone-down (seems to read somewhat as an advertisement currently), however. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Birth certificate spam (UK)

Just been chasing this link [2]. Kept appearing from different IP addresses - only one post from each. Cleared for now but if anyone feels like keeping an eye? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm I've removed some of these from different IPs also. Being put in one at a time all over the UK. Definitely one to keep an eye on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Currently trying to get it blocked but still active - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Userpage spam

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely tolerant of links on userpages, as is the community. However this user and this user (which I found through this search) are not interested in editing Wikipedia. I saw this discussed somewhere recently but can't find where it was. What is the policy for deleting this spam? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

A bit controversial, but I blanked User:Phenter. Given the recent activities of MfD, the page would probably get deleted quite unanimously, and there's no need to clutter the mfd pages I feel. Kevin_b_er 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute getting personal

I have a disagreement that is getting unpleasantly personal. It is a followup on Organic light-emitting diode discussed above. You can read what has been going on on Talk:Organic light-emitting diode and User talk:Alexander Kelin. (Also check the page history). I think I am no longer able to make cool judgements now. Does anyone think I have said anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack or that is unreasonable? Han-Kwang 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the talk page to put back in the blanked section - important I feel so that anyone can read what is said. I am reluctant to revert the user talk page although I see there is content deleted here too. My own view would be that you have said nothing offensive or inflamatory. It seems that you have come accros a user who is intent on a particular agenda which for me is outside my understanding of Wiki. However my experience here is inadequate to advise on what should be done next - sorry --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

I've left a message on his talk page. This looks like a typical borderline spammer: he didn't come to Wikipedia to promote his site, but now that he's here he's got his ego all wrapped up in whether it's in the article or not. It's unfortunate, because the purely commercial spammers tend to just be weaselly about it, not emotional. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

As one of the people he attacked, I agree. It appears that he is an expert on the subject, and it would be unfortunate if he stopped contributing because he perceived opposition to his link a personal attack. Perhaps I'm not impartial either, but I thought Han-Kwang did a fine job of not being drawn in by personal attacks. Wmahan . 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Reminder for comments

I know that some people have quite a bit on their plates however could I ask if anyone would like to comment on the links mnetioned above (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Links to private railway site - further opinions please) and Lynbarn's propsed solution to them. I would be quite happy with this solution but as I brought it here it would seem better if someone else's comments were added - thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Problem on Koi

I've reverted the same spam link, cheapkoi.co.uk, on Koi three times in the past 24 hours, and it is back again. Would someone else mind looking at it. -- Donald Albury 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

And the same anon also keeps reinserting a link to Gnarls Barkley Tour Dates in Gnarls Barkley. It's odd, just those two sites, but the anon is persistent. -- Donald Albury 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Different anon doing the Gnarls one now - I've reverted it but there are quite a few links that are less relevant in my opinion. However I would not look for tour dates on wiki anyway. The Koi I consider commercial (the name including the word "cheap" does it for me!). I'll clear it now and keep an eye too when I'm on. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, two different IP ranges. It was the pairing of Koi and Gnarls from both ranges that made me say it was the same anon. Might be home and work connections. Maybe I'll check whois. Persistent, whoever it is. -- Donald Albury 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Yep! Both ranges assigned to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. -- Donald Albury 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Noticed that afterwards - varied tastes at least! I'll watch both I think - --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

They have commented on the talk page and I have politely warned them (already had 2 proper warnings) --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Another "survey"...

See Special:Contributions/Spawn_Man. I though I saw this sort of thing discussed somewhere, but I forget where. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam on Brazilian wax

I posted this on the Helpdesk, but someone suggested I post it here. I'm not sure if this is actually the right place, the problem isn't ELs being posted to a bunch of different pages, I just want some guidance as to whether or not the links are appropriate.

A bunch of new links were just added to the Brazilian wax article. I've read the EL policy but I'm not absolutely sure if some of them are linkspam. Could an editor experienced with this stuff go take a look at them? I don't think they're all linkspam, but I think some may be. Thanks. Anchoress 17:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Took the (to me) very obvious spam one out - not sure about the others tho (& yes feel free to post this sort of thing here - even better - join us) 8-)! --Nigel ^(Talk) 20:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! And if/when I get a better feel for what's appropriate, I'd be happy to. Anchoress 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Spam or not spam?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but here I go. http://www. animals- pictures-dictionary .com/ looks to me like a spam-website, it's currently linked in 16 articles, and I've seen anons adding the site regularly here and there to the external links section. The site also has quite some information tho (some stolen from Wikipedia without GFDL notices), so I'd like to get a second opinion before I remove all links to that site. --Conti|✉ 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, spam. This site exists to get eyeballs and mouse clicks on the ads. What really makes it bad is that people seem to be somewhat aggressive about putting this site into many of the external links sections of articles that I watch - I delete these links at least once every other day. But, that is not really the only reason to remove the site. We are not a web directory - and there are no real compelling reasons to list it from the external links guidelines and several reasons not to. If you wanna find images of animals, go to google, that's a better place to look (oh, wait, they are trying to improve page rank i bet) - Trysha ^(talk) 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Note - i've removed them all - Trysha ^(talk) 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! --Conti|✉ 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

As a person who visits this site regularly i can say that it is a great one. most of the animals sites use a lot of pop ups and a lot more ads at their site. this site is much more organized than most of the sites ive seen and it sure has a lot of data!! After Ive seen what you have written i entered into the site and searched for wikipedia and i discovered that everytime there is an article of wikipedia there is a direct link to the definition in which it was taken from. you could do whatever you want but i believe that claiming this site to be spam and inefficient is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.187.97 (talk • contribs) .

Heh. The same anon who said this added a similar site to an article: http://www.islands-n-beaches.com. Maybe there are even more sites like these around here? --Conti|✉ 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I removed the site from 13 articles. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

A linkspammer confession

User:Croclover is now blocked indefinitely, but before he departed he left this which gives a small insight into a linkspammers motives. -- I@n 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Sad, yes (and thanks for letting us know) - but not disheartening. We have tools on our side - Special:Linksearch, the blacklist on meta, and most importantly: time. Inappropriate links will be found, and will eventually be taken care of. Ultimately, any success spammers have here will be quite short-lived. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

But he is right though. The google rank will have increased even once those links have been deleted. But it's not that we're too stupid to understand that as he suggests. Simply it's a byproduct of Wikipedia's choice of universal rights of editing. Until the day (which I believe will come) where we have some basic editing restrictions this will go on and we can at best hope to limit the phenomenon. Actually what would be great is to try to have Google decrease the page rank of anything listed on our blacklist. Pascal.Tesson 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If there is ever a consensus for using rel="nofollow" in links, that should essentially solve the problem with no need to restrict edits. It's already enabled for the other language wikis and all pages not in the main article namespace. Wmahan . 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice to see that discussion. I was unaware of it. I wonder whether this is an issue that should eventually be brought up again. I mean the keep majority was fairly slim and a lot has happened since March 2005 (which is when that vote took place as far as I understand). I think people in this project can attest to the fact that linkspammers are a time-consuming annoyance for Wikipedia editors and comments such as Croclover's would certainly be evidence that many spammers would realize (at least in the long run) that they cannot gain much by targeting Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't PageRank dynamic; ie. if the link that makes a site rise is removed, wouldn't that make the link target's PageRank drop? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Its just Universe Daily. Remove his spam and report to AIV. Reference Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily. Kevin_b_er 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible "heads up" page

Firedog. Came across this one. Valid corp page as far as I can see but contained an awful lot of links. I've pruned some but there is even the company phone number too. Worth watching as you pass maybe. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion to prevent linkspam

Here's an idea to compromise between the freely-editable nature of WP and the desire to prevent linkspam: Allow unregistered users to edit, so long as their edits do not involve adding external links, which are the least important part of editing. Unregistered newbies could still edit to their heart's content, just not add links.

If that needs to go one step further, we could restrict link-adding to accounts older than, say, 30 days, and which have, say, 30 edits under their belt. -MichaelBluejay 23:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Nice idea, although that would probably be very problematic in terms of implementation. Pascal.Tesson 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't actually be that difficut. The edit script simply needs to scan for a http:// string that didn't appear in the previous version and then check who's editing. The general programming on this site is pretty impressive, this idea should be a piece of cake. The real roadblock wouldn't be technical, it would be whether WP really wants to go in that direction. -MichaelBluejay 04:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Possible objections:

Everything on Wikipedia should (in theory) be cited. Removing the ability to add links could severely limit the ability to cite sources along with new information, or to add sources for existing claims lacking citations.
Although I agree that the implementation should be straightforward for the most part, it would be tricky in some cases. Anons probably wouldn't be able to correct typos in existing links (since to MediaWiki, that would look like adding links). Allowing anons to restore links previously removed (for example, by vandalism) might also be an obstacle.
When possible, Wikipedia tries not to make anonymous users second-class citizens. After all, they make up a significant majority of visitors.

I've wondered if it would be possible to combine this idea with the rel="nofollow" thing I mentioned above. In other words, links added by new and unregistered users would be included, but marked not to be used for search engine rankings. I think the problem with that idea is there's no good way of allowing established editors to mark a link as approved, so that it is used by search engines. Wmahan . 06:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

dog food.

So, the sheer number of links on Dog food annoys me, but I can sort of see the reason that they are there. Any other anti-spammers have thoughts on this page? - Trysha ^(talk) 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Good call - cleaned it a bit (might not have got all of it) - thanks. Stick around and help? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted a second set of eyes, i've been around forever - i just don't talk much :) (most of my edits are vandal and spam reverts) - Trysha ^(talk) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Webcrawlers

Do web search engines search through history pages eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxNetwork&diff=prev&oldid=74475668 ? -- I@n 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No. History pages have this tag:

The noindex prevents search engines from indexing the page, and nofollow prevents the engines from following the links in the page. See robots.txt#HTML meta tags for robots. In the example you gave, what the spammer did was simply a waste of time. Wmahan . 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm quite new to all of this and am finding it quite fascinating - heaps to learn. You guys are doing a great job BTW. -- I@n 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Actually, if I'm not mistaken, a crawler with "bad intentions" can ignore that tag and crawl anyway. The polite crawlers from Google and other legitimate indexing organizations will observe this request. --A. B. 04:51, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

The question was about search engines, which obey the the exclusion policies. You're right that email spambots sometimes ignore the rules, but that shouldn't have any effect on linkspammers, unless they include email addresses and get themselves added to email spam lists; that would be poetic justice. Also, crawlers that don't obey Wikipedia's robots.txt policies can be blocked. -- Wmahan . 06:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

4288 enhancement

Please support [bug 4288 http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4288]. It is for generalized tagging and may help with your project. --Gbleem 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't see how that would directly help prevent spam. Even if a certain version of an article is tagged as "not spammed", new spam would still be shown in the most recent version. The bug doesn't seem relevant to anti-spam efforts unless it's implemented as part of the 2006 proposed approval for anonymous edits or similar. Wmahan . 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Can someone else watch this

I have Italian grammar on my watchlist, and a persistent anon has been removing relevant links, and adding a spam link in their stead. The user is clever, in that s/he will make several edits from different IPs in order to circumvent the "Rollback" button from removing the added link. I seem to be the only one watching this article, and would appreciate a little help, especially since I'll be taking a wiki sabbatical for personal reasons. (The other choice is semi-protection, which I'd rather not do.) Thanks all! Mind matrix 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

On my watchlist now. As it appears the spammer is inserting the same link repeatedly (but from different IPs), this may qualify for the blacklist. I'll keep an eye on the article and if the spamming persists, I'll submit the blacklist request. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it may be time to add it to the spam blacklist. The person doing this is on the Tiscali network (84.222.0.0 - 84.223.255.255), and changes IP with every edit. Moreover, the user spams the Italian, German, Swedish and other Wikipedias. Also, removal of other links (eg - this edit on the German WP or on the English WP) is common. We can't block the network, so we'll have to watch for link removal, but we can certainly block the addition of the spamlink. Mind matrix 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yikes! I have put in the request for a blacklist entry. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

External links on town pages

I removed external links here [3] yesterday. They have been put back with a comment on the article talk page here [4].

There are two issues for me. The Knowhere guide link - the article for this has been deleted as it had very few Ghits indeed - it would appear that some links may have been to enhance the site's ranking. It was while I was removing these links I found the page in question. I would far prefer to see this link replaced with some more conventional link as citation - a non notable website would not seem to be a good place to look for notability.

The local links - these are all extremely worthy (largely placed by IP's), however my view and understanding is that Wiki is an encyclopedia not a directory and if these type of links were on every page for every town it would become a directory.

Given the editor's comment on the article talk page I feel that other views should be heard please - thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Very pleased to have this put up for review. I am content with whatever consensus is reached. Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an article about a town/city doesn't need links to every organization in that town/city that may have its own website. Can you imagine if we started doing that with cities like New York City? A link to a single directory page might be appropriate in place of the individual links.

Regarding the knowhere link, regardless of whether knowhere is a notable website, it most certainly does not appear to be a reliable source. Most damning is its own disclaimer plastered on the pages:

| Important Note: all entries in the Knowhere Guide are the opinions of its users. see What is Knowhere for more info about the Guide.

and, on their "What is Knowhere" page:

| We make no claims as to the accuracy of the information in the Guide - our only purpose is to provide a forum for users to share their knowledge and opinions.

As forums are links that should normally be avoided (even as a plain external link), certainly this type of information cannot be considered reliable enough to use as a citation, as it appears to be used for in the article in question. As such, I feel it ought to be removed. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm with AbsolutDan on this one. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. The knowhere guide does not meet WP:RS, and the fact it is "backing up" should have a citation needed template. As for the other links, they are not relevant to the subject of the town as a whole, and are the nucleus of a link directory, which we are not. Instead, why not add a link to a single open-source web directory like dmoz? (e.g. for here [5]). Aquilina 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

I do appreciate all the input and imagine we can consider this one resloved. I've learnt quite a bit for which thanks and will review links on pages with more confidence (tho the Knowhere guide was a bit of a "no brainer" for me). Thanks Aquilina for the dmoz one, I'll certainly use that in future. I know of it, I see it on pages - did I think of it...! Best --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Panda sandwiches

I just wrote a proposal (WP:PANDA - though probably more of an essay) that's essentially a reductio ad absurdum argument for why we don't like spam, vandalism, and POV-pushing (came out of a momentary whim of mine when responding to a "website fan" pseudo-spammer on WP:VPP). We argue with people about this over and over again here, and don't have a clever, friendly, and fun-to-read page about why they can't link to their site even though it's such a great site that everyone would want to visit it if only we let them link to it from every conceivably related article.

Needs some work of course, but it could come in handy... please add/subtract/correct. <kidding →>And don't delete this posting, I worked hard on that webpage, and I deserve to make a few bucks off it. </← kidding> --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Nothing to add, just - Panda sandwiches. Meh. I actually had to argue with someone who insisted that Wikipedia needed an article about manatee steaks… Femto 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Did they link to it from the PETA article? :) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Intercultural competence

(I don't really know where to write that)
Hi. I think this page is some kind of spam for an employees training technique or something like that. This subject can be interesting (and is already studied in many scientific disciplines) but only when the purpose of the page is to tell who does what, when it started, etc. Not when it tries to give a fake scientific aura to some kind of a messy collection of ideas. Jean-no 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Not keen on the page - looks more PR type thing than Wiki really. I've taken out the obvious commercial ones plus a 404 and one that only seems to be a flash presentation. As to the whole page, not sure --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Opinion needed about one link

At Logo, I've been in a disagreement over one particular link for a while now. To summarize, I removed a link because in my opinion it looked like a thinly veiled advertisement for a logo design service. A new user, User:Cochese8, came along and re-added the link, so I decided to assume good faith and leave it.

Then someone else pointed out that the link was originally added by the the site owner, User:Jsmorse47, who used the email address cochese8@[removed for privacy] for the website registration (note that this is the name of the user above). Jsmorse47 does not deny being the owner of the site. When asked, the two users avoided the issue, then said they are not the same person but friends who got the name from the same place.

I have removed the link several times, and a couple of others have removed it once or twice, but these two users continue to re-add it. I would be happy to accept any neutral opinions, whether for or against the link, since I've already spent too much time on this one link. Wmahan . 04:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I weighed in. Perhaps a bit heavily though. These guys have some nerve wasting your time over this. Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated. I hesitated to bring the issue here, but I didn't like the idea of letting a link stay simply because someone added it so persistently. Wmahan . 04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

You're very welcome. Actually, isn't this talk page the perfect place to get second opinions on spam issues? Pascal.Tesson 05:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Old-time radio-related links

I would appreciate some additional opinions at Talk:Old-time radio. User:Dnyhagen is insistent that links to his personal website (self-admittedly a 2-man-operation) ought to be present on this and other articles, and has launched into a lengthy tirade about the evils of removing external links. Relevent discussions are also on my talk page here: User talk:AbsolutDan#Need_some_guidance_on_.27notability.27 and his talk page here: User talk:Dnyhagen. Thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:17, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't a 'tirade' against removing any and all links, as long as it was thoughtful, appropriate, equitable, and equitably applied. Period. Simply clarification. Thanks Dnyhagen 23:45, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Dnyhagen: my apologies for the tone of the post above. We tend to "let down our hair" a bit here, and perhaps I let too much of it down here. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:02, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Not keen on this one either - I "tidied" some of the links in the other article (AfD one). Will look at this quickly then more tomorrow I hope. Cheers - Nigel ^(Talk) 18:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the 2nd opinions, and the cleanup work. Which AfD'd article are you referring to though? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:42, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Embarassed silence ... OK I meant Digi Deli so maybe it was wishful thinking! I will get back to this one tho a bit later I hope and if not tomorrow. I fail to see any justification in linking to radio progs in wiki - if that isn't directory links I don't know what is (although any chance wiki links could be used??). The work on this & Logo worry me a bit. Such determination in the face of rational argument is hard for all. I personally wonder why (at the start) spam warnings were not placed to a greater degree. I guess I tend to warn first & wonder after but with these people logic seems not to work (just an airing, been travelling all day!). Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:20, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

AS a PS - some activity going on - links being taken out of pages by the editor referred to above? Nigel ^(Talk) 17:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I honestly can't tell if the removal of the links by Dnyhagen (talk · contribs) is example of violating WP:POINT, or a genuine effort to clean up articles. Anyway, your opinions and support on these articles are appreciated--I agree some editors are quite steadfast despite opposing arguments. Wmahan . 17:40, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't necessary categorize his link removals as WP:POINT. I actually did encourage him to remove links, if they were in fact inappropriate (see my talk page and his for our previous discussion). I haven't looked through his contribs with a fine-tooth comb, so I don't know if any of those links were good links to keep. If any of them were good, someone should probably drop a polite suggestion on his talk page to remove only links that are inappropriate, and that some links are appropriate. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey, let's not stand on ceremony here. Point them out to me, polite or not. I summarized in ample detail, the links I initially removed. Given that most of them were removed the same night, it shouldn't be difficult to simply reverse all of them. How perfect is that? You can continue to blame it all on me, the beneficiaries can continue to get all their page hits, the abusers will be vindicated, and it's a win-win for all concerned? No? I don't mind being a lighting rod, yet again for all the blame. The piling on at this point won't even be further felt by me. I'll never even notice more of it at this point. Just do a mass reversal of all of them. Then everyone's happy again, and only one person remains the goat. Dnyhagen 23:41, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Template:WPSPAM-invite

I have re-worded the {{WPSPAM-invite}} template slightly. Normally I'm not one to be too picky about words, but Wikipedia really isn't supposed to be a battleground. I think this wording puts a more positive spin on our efforts. Thoughts? Does anyone even use the template anymore? :) --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 01:53, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Lattice Semiconductor

I've noticed a relatively new editor Kphowell (talk · contribs) going through and adding wikilinks to some newly created articles advertising products by Lattice Semiconductor (e.g. Mico32, LatticeMico8 - 8-bit Microcontroller). I guess I'm hoping to get a second opinion on whether the articles themselves are notable and can be salvaged. --Alan Au 05:37, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

2nd opinion

I figured the removal of these links to not be controversial, but apparently it is. 24.20.168.65 added dozens of links to arcadeflyers.com on many arcade articles. What was esspecially disturbing is that the IP's geolocation according to dnsstuff.com is in Beaverton, Oregon and the website is registered in Hillsboro, Oregon. Turns out those two cities are both suburbs of Portland, Oregon. From this, combined with the fact that in the case we need the copyrighted content, we have several fair use tagged images on wikipedia from that website's collection. But to have a link to it on every arcade article, all added by the same person, doesn't seem like a good idea. If I get major counterarguements to this, I'll take the initiative and revert myself. --Kevin_b_er 19:46, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Definitely spammy to me - on that subject - in excess of 500 links to klov.com? That feels like spam to me. --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:21, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Depends, there's thousands of links to this imdb.com site, would that be spam? Have to examine the source of each. Usually spam comes from a small group of people trying to promote a website. Though the links can spring up gradually through multiple editors favoring the website's information. That's the difference between a large number of links and spam to me. Removing klov links would need an investigation to prove spamming activities and major cooperation from the WikiProject Computer and video games, which I tend to think neither will come up positive. Best to look for other things. Kevin_b_er 20:05, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Any IP whose sole edits are crossposting this EL everywhere it is relevant is definitely spam. On the other hand, the website appears to be more of a fansite than some money cow so the occasional link could be tolerated. Pascal.Tesson 20:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

"occasional" I have no problem at all with Pascal but if I see a large number of links too any site (& I call over 500 extremely large) it does make me wonder. Ok - for me it is early but should we really be looking for "small" links cos they are easy to get rid of or ... (ducks, runs away quickly!) --Nigel ^(Talk) 08:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Ok, well, I don't have time to deal with this right now, but 24.20.168.65 is indeed the owner of the website and has registered as User:Dphower, and readded nearly all the links. See the note on my talk page where he claims himself as such and signs as Dan. Would someone else care to talk to him? This goes against links to be avoided #3, because he owns/runs the website, where the additional of them is not neutral. Kevin_b_er 17:06, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

I left a long and I hope useful message for Dphower (talk · contribs) on the issue with his linking to his site, and a way that he can possibly get his links into the articles legitimately (by getting the approval of the computer and video games WikiProject, they being the best representative of The Community with the right interests). I hope that the message is not only practically useful for him in terms of going about this in a manner that is acceptable to the community, but also that it gives him some perspective and context for how Wikipedia works and so why he's getting such staunch opposition. Let's see how he responds. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Very nicely done! /wangi 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Indian Eng. Literature links

Links to this site had been spammed to about 50 different articles. I reverted about half of them; the remaining ones appear to be Indian-literature-specific. While they are more relevant to those articles, it does seem like a spamming campaign. Thoughts? OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the replacement of legit links is a big indication that the spammer was more interested in promotion than providing useful content (examples I just cleaned up: [6] and [7]). And based on some snippets chosen at random, it appears that large portions of the site's content are copied from indolink.com, or vice versa (or they are both copyvios of another source). I would favor removing any links to that site mass-added by anonymous IPs. Wmahan . 07:27, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I have noticed a trend of web sites like this lately, I actually saw a howto about making money with sites like this (a co-worker of mine actually quit his job to do this), I have not been able to find the link since, it was taken down. Basically the scheme is that you pick a topic, steal lots of data about that topic from sources all over the net, and put it into a web site. These websites all are templated, so they are trivial to create. Since you have 'good information', you can claim to be legit - and try to get your site linked on wikipedia, other wiki sites, blogs, etc.. all to get pagerank. You place ads all over the site and benefit (putting google ads within the content, asking for email addresses, place false promises of future forums and new content to try to get people to come back). I see these on the dog articles all the time. It costs very little money to put up these sites and maintain them, and only an hour or two of google searches to set them up. These sites remind me of this scheme. - Trysha ^(talk) 08:07, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Fanfiction

I've recently joined the project, and wondered if I might get some advice. The article on fanfiction is a magnet for link farmers. The list of links was agreed on the talk page with one of the main editors of the article last month, but I'm now in danger of getting into an edit war with another user, MookiesDad, over a couple of insertions which I consider trivial examples and s/he considers critical. The problem is that there are probably hundreds of thousands of fandoms, and if we include an example link from each the article will inevitably be swamped. Espresso Addict 22:42, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Should be easy, there's already a major example of what is fanfiction on one of the external links at fanfiction.net, which is extremely relavant to the article as it appears to be one of the major and early websites for such a topic. Specific extra links don't add anything extra. Should be easy, there's already a major example of what is fanfiction on one of the external links at fanfiction.net, which is extremely relavant to the article as it appears to be one of the major and early websites for such a topic. Specific extra links don't add anything extra. I removed those two links. I left a more detailed explanation on the article's talk page of why. Kevin_b_er 04:29, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. After reverting them twice, I thought it was probably best to let someone else perform a sanity check. Espresso Addict 05:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Espresso. MookiesDad has some very definite views on fandom, fan fiction, and what constitutes an appropriate link-spot. He's been repeatedly and rapidly deleting a link to my own FanFic site from the two related articles where it seems most useful and appropriate (see Talk:Tom Swift, Jr. and Talk:Tom Swift, and don't forget to browse through History); and now I see that he's been inserting same where it doesn't belong, at Fan Fiction--the general article. Hence the incipient edit-war with the fellow, which I also allowed myself to fall into. He has a long history of disputable edit practices under many names, and is now posted on WP:PAIN. So hey, be assured, you're the sane one in the room. -Scott Dickerson Doxmyth 00:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo madness continued?

Not too sure who around here is an admin and has followed the Cochese8 madness on the logo talk page. He has found someone to support him in user Closercate1 (talk · contribs). Nothing wrong with that except that this is a new user whose sole edits are to the Logo talk page and two logo-related AfD nominations. The afd noms I also suspect are retaliation against Jkatzen (talk · contribs) who was vocal on the Logo talk page. I think an admin might want to investigate it, I strongly suspect a Cochese8 puppet. I did leave a message on the user's talk page but I realize now that this might be a bit of a (ahem) "not so nice" move. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 01:34, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

People around here will also be happy to learn that we are now officially a "little band of link police who target certain people and ignore violators of their own rules" (see User:Cochese8) and that Cochese8 is lobbying hard for support. [8] Pascal.Tesson 02:26, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That is "good news", nice to be recognised at last. As to puppet issues it certainly looks like a valid question to me. I think this page and the Radio pages could do with review by any interested editors. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:12, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the possible sockpuppetry, there's some evidence that the Cochese8 account is itself a sockuppet or meatpuppet of Jsmorse47 (talk · contribs), the owner of the website that Cochese8 is so intent on linking to. In addition to the email address similarity (see Talk:Logo), starting with the first edit nearly all Cochese8's contributions seem devoted to advocating one link. A notable exception is supporting Jsmorse47's position on an AfD vote.

Furthermore, in addition to Cochese8's continued canvassing, Jsmorse47 has been canvassing for people to to contribute their deleted articles to an external website. The two most prominent editors on that website are, not surprisingly, cochese8[9] and jsmorse47[10]. Jsmorse47 has already (inadvertently) admitted editing using an IP that previously added links to his website (see Talk:Basal metabolic rate), so I don't think it's above question that he would use more than one account.

Finally, it appears that Jsmorse47 has a brother who edits Wikipedia, Ermorse (talk · contribs) (see for example the Evolution Diet AfD, where Ermorse voted to keep Jsmorse47's article about his own self-published book and website). So it is possible that the accounts in question are pursuing the same agenda while being literally truthful when they claim not to be the same person.

Sorry about the long comment. So far I've tried to assume good faith since there was no evidence of outright abuse. Although I'm weary of the whole situation, I think it's something worth keeping an eye on. Wmahan . 01:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Extra note: I've recommended the blacklisting of www.code-interactive.com since inappropriate ELs to it have created numerous similar problems. Pascal.Tesson 03:23, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this last night and agree that Jsmorse47 (talk · contribs), Cochese8 (talk · contribs) and Closercate1 (talk · contribs) appear to be the same person, but the evidence is tenuous, and as you say, little serious damage has been done to date. Watching. -- I@n 06:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

"SPAM"

Please tell me that authoritative links in compliance with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:External_links are not considered Spam by your group. One of your members obliterated the External Links section on American Paint Horse - completely - among those links were www.apha.org (the registry). I'm sure that's not the only heavy handed deletions that have occurred. Rather than having to continue going around fixing the errors that have been made - perhaps a discussion about what is actually spam would be in order.

Thank you Lmocr 15:36, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

That was me. What is and is not spam is often subjective, and perhaps to describe those links as Spam was too strong. Perhaps also deleting them all was being too heavy handed. But I do feel there were too many - WP is not a web directory. Links are useful to reference/verify something in the article, otherwise, I would ask why can't the information in the link be included in the article? Is it that the editor is too lazy to do so? Or is there some other motive? To answer your question, as far as WP:EL is concerned:

What should be linked to: "...Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference,..."; and "Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article..."
Links to be used occasionally: "A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories."

I would suggest that the APHA website and perhaps the DMOZ directory are sufficient for the above, but would appreciate others thoughts. -- I@n 17:04, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Radio - join the discussion maybe

It has been suggested an editor work on a review of the links on Old-time radio. As I had started it seemed sensible to continue. I have removed all the links pro tem and created a new discussion page for their consideration - it's here Discussion of links. I have requested that none but put back until we reach agreement and so anyone here who sees a link on the page may wish to revert it regardless of who may have placed it.

Equally I would appreciate the views of anyone with an interest in the page to assist with the discussion - hope to see you there and make this a page we can all be happy with, thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Rewording the spam templates

The spam templates are meant to be used as a one-size-fits-all response to spamming. Unfortunately, the text of them as currently written doesn't quite fit all cases. In addition, I think they unnecessarily (and confusingly) focus on commercial links. In particular, the use of "advertising" and "commercial" prominently in the first three templates gives the mistaken impression that Wikipedia doesn't want links to commercial sites, rather than the correct impression that Wikipedia doesn't want self-promotional link-adding. Really, links to commercial sites are okay (withing the bounds of WP:EL apart from the no-spam stuff).

These templates are sometimes our first point of contact with new editors. In the spirit of Wikipedia:Don't bite the newcomers, I think we need to re-evaluate these templates in light of what they say to someone who is well-meaning. (The ill-meaning ones won't care apart from the overall message of "don't", which they'll ignore anyway.) The important thing, I believe, is that we make these more accurately reflect our policies, do so clearly, and do so in a way that doesn't provoke knee-jerk reactions from or give unnecessary offense to well-meaning new users.

Being our point-of-first-contact there is a secondary goal I have in mind. Spammers fall into two categories: those who are ill-meaning, and those who are ignorant of the "don't be biased, no vanity, no self-promotion" rules we have. A badly-worded template can not only turn the second case into the first (this is related to the problem above), but can also confuse them. I don't know how many people I've seen warned with these templates who then respond with "but it's not commercial" or "but I think people need to be told about this site". These people have missed the point, and it's not really their fault because the templates, particularly {{spam1}}/{{spam-n}}, are misleading on those counts. So, the second goal is to answer these responses before a warned user even thinks of them by not putting the wrong criteria for "being spam" in their heads with a poorly-worded template.

My suggestion to start with is to remove all mention of "commercial" and "personal" from the templates, replacing it with language about "self-promotional links". This would, I think, suffice for templates 2 and 3 (number 4 I have no problems with anyway). For template 1, however, I think we need to put more work into it. This is a crucial template because it may be the first time they are made aware of our links policies. So, we have to craft it to very carefully not give offense where none is deserved, introduce our (rather unique, I must say) standards of good and bad links, and not give them easy "targets" (like the word "commercial") to use in a quick denial that they are spamming. Ideally, we want them to read it and say "oh, okay, I won't do that anymore", not "oh, obviously they are mistaken because that message doesn't describe what I did at all" or "oh, well if those are the rules then I can get around them easily". — Saxifrage ✎ 21:57, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, its long time that the wording of {{spam}} and its relatives be cleaned up. I should note that you can generalize most of the issues into NPOV. Vanity and self-promotion are marks of not holding a neutral point of view. People misconstructing the 'commercial' part are the primary issue. Need to remove that term. I set up spam, spam2, and spam3 as subpages for us to revise them. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Spam1, Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Spam2, and Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/Spam3. Kevin_b_er 02:43, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I completely agree with Saxifrage. I would like to see some mention of "directory" links in spam1 and possibly spam2. Many of the links I find myself removing are this sort and I think are placed due to a misunderstaning of Wiki rather than any other intent. In the past two days I have had two instances where this was the issue. Yesterday a new editor placed some external links and I left a non spam message on their page. We had a dialogue and the editor is working on some nice pages - I question whether the outcome would have been the same had I placed a "warning". That said I usually do (& the are a number of instances above where dialogue did not seem to help) and so a "warning" that was more informative would be useful I think --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In my opinion, trying to make {{spam}} a self-contained explanation of itself is altogether futile. WP:NOT, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM don't really contain answers specific to the needs of the average user whose link was just removed. They don't want to read policies, they just want some first quick explanations, which simply can't fit all in {{spam}}. Even when it fits 95% of the people, it would still confuse or offend the other 5%, no matter what. And as any contributor to this project knows, these 5% amount to 95% of the debate routine that usually follows on the talk pages. Take those repetitive responses and explanations, and create a page, say, Wikipedia:Common arguments regarding external links. Refer to it from {{spam}}, then the template can be reduced to its absolutely essential minimum: "I removed some links of yours. Please don't add more. Questions about these policies? Likely already answered in detail here. If not, ask." One side may recognize their own questions and get the answers they seek even before asking, the other side doesn't have to repeat it all, both sides win. Femto 17:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

For me - not gentle enough for a first warning but the "see common arguments" is good. --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:19, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I like the idea of a "common arguments" page. I agree with Nigel that perhaps that could go in spam2 or 3? I think we ought to point to our stronger pillars first in spam1: WP:EL and WP:SPAM. If the person continues to add links, we can assume WP:EL and WP:SPAM were not enough or unclear, and 2 or 3 could then point them to the "common arguments" to try to further convince them. Maybe a different title though? Like "Linkspam Q&A"? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to illustrate the little amount of what the template really needs to say, the actual phrasing has to be 'gentlified' of course. Also, not including common arguments until {{spam2}} would defeat its purpose of giving some first and easy answers beyond the "stop adding links now" template message. NOT/EL/SPAM would remain and come first of course. Ironically, the title of this page as well as the text of {{Spam1}} itself should avoid the word "spam"! Let the other side decide for themselves whether they take it as a helpful pointer, or as a first warning. The more general the wording, the less loopholes. (You know, "I'm not spamming, I'm adding lots of useful links. Why should I read a page about spam?") How's Wikipedia:External links Q&A or Wikipedia:External links FAQ? Femto 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

You make good points, I find myself agreeing with all of them. I like the EL FAQ title. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 20:46, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

My thoughts:

I agree with the idea behind Femto's comment: the only messages relevant to every case are basically "stop adding links now" and "read these policies, and tell me if you disagree or have questions". If we include any language that the spammer could possibly argue with, he or she will probably seize that as an excuse to continue spamming.
I understand the desire to shift from "commercial or personal" to "promotional". But I'm concerned that "promotional" is not really verifiable, since we can't prove that a spammer's intention is to promote, and intentions are easy to deny. Saying self-promotional is an even easier target; all the spammer has to do is claim not to be the site's owner. In contrast, usually "personal" and "commercial" are objectively clear.
I'm definitely supportive of the spirit behind WP:BITE. But I've found that trying to welcome users while warning about spam comes across as disingenuous. Even a fool knows that "stop what you're doing" is not the warmest of welcomes, no matter how diplomatically the message is worded. So I think the templates should be welcoming but fairly direct, and not overly warm-and-fuzzy.
If it helps start the common arguments page, you can use any material you want from my list here. Wmahan . 07:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Excellent, it's just about the structure I had in mind (less defensive and non-first-person style of course). Starting polite and helpful, in a strictly assume-good-faith manner with an explanation of the policies, and progressing through all the possible objections. Everybody may stop reading at the points which don't concern them. I'm afraid with my writing skills I can't be of much help in actually working on such a page though. Femto 19:36, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

I reworded it so my comments aren't in the first person. I agree it could be less defensive. Wmahan . 14:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

In the review should we at least consider views on {{spam0}} and {{spam4im}}. My feeling is that spam0 is essentially redundant (could be removed?) and that spam4im is fine - I do tend to use this for ones that appear to have gone unnoticed/unwarned to at least allow following editors to get a block. --Nigel ^(Talk) 07:02, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

I haven't found spam0 very useful, but it might be if modified to be the spam equivalent of {{NPOV0}}. Thre are a lot of cases where a person adds several links to one site, but they might be relevant enough to keep. It would be nice to have a template that doesn't make a strong statement against links previously added, just a friendly reminder to be mindful of Wikipedia:External links in the future. I agree spam4im is useful; it's the spam equivalent of {{bv}}. Wmahan . 14:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Guess I just felt we might as well do the "whole" job. Personally I've never used spam0 but if it could be reworded to a "nice" one it will save me inventing my own like "I notice that you are placing external links on a number of pages. Could you please familiarise yourself with WP:EL and WP:NOT before going to far as this can be seen as an attempt too "spam" and improve rankings etc via Wiki." which I tend to use on new editors placing links (not suggesting my wording just the idea)? Any agreement & I'll open another page for spam0. --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:55, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Prevention or Cure!

And kind of following Saxifrage's approach I've placed this as a sub head but if anyone wants to separate it feel free. I don't believe that there is a "standard" hidden warning for external links or even if there should be but ... for a while now I have been removing external links that may be a little grey. I have come to accept that on pages such as Digital Photography & Call girl it will be hard to prevent people thinking it is a good place for links. However looking at pages related to tourist areas or "my home town" for example I feel that it may be the lack of understanding of Wiki and external links that is an issue.

On one or two pages I have seen "hidden messages" (seen when editing only) suggesting various forms of "Wiki is not a directory". I've started using this approach myself (sometimes with comments on the article talk page as well). My message would probably be -

It would be good to have other views in the prevention area, Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 10:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree prevention is better than cure. Why don't you set up a subpage, like the spam templates ones, to collect discussion of various texts suggested for use in this context? Espresso Addict 18:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

{{nomorelinks}} sort of serves this purpose, though it's more of a "stop!" than a "please be aware" kind of message. A hidden message template that complements that one with a gentler message would be good. — Saxifrage ✎ 18:08, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

FWIW I've started using it more consistently. I'll see how many times I go back to pages with it on --Nigel ^(Talk) 06:57, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Right now {{nomorelinks}} is too authoritarian for my taste. It says "DO NOT ADD MORE LINKS TO THIS ARTICLE". It might give the impression that someone owns the article, and scare editors away from from adding clearly-useful links or from editing the article altogether. The other templates manage to be firm and clear without all-caps. Maybe it would be better to tone down {{nomorelinks}} instead of adding another template. Wmahan . 15:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Completely with you there Wil. Something a little more informative but stressing that they have no right to their wonderful link would be useful. I've placed a few of mine around now so it will be interesting to see what if anything gets added to those pages --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Mosaic

Could someone else take a look at Mosaic and revert user 71.146.26.177 (talk · contribs) who has been readding a batch of external links that I removed for being spam or inappropriate over a month ago. From their contributions I doubt they are a new user, but I've dropped them an couple of warnings and they could also do with being warned on WP:3RR. -- Solipsist 19:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Views on outside directories

On OTRadio links discussion I have suggested a dmoz link which (to me) looks pretty relevant. There is resistance. What are the views on other "directory type" links here? Google has been suggested though obviously the actual search term will need careful consideration. Help appreciated - thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:18, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Dmoz is probably one of the better choices for a link directory, and its open. "A web directory category when deemed appropriate by those contributing to an article, with preference to open directories. [*] If you boil down to the question of wether or not a link directory should be included, then its down to who makes the best arguement, and guidelines can't help with that. --Kevin_b_er 15:21, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Kevin - my view precisely - however there is some resistance and I'm looking for a path thro! --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:24, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Logo - yes again

The straw poll is getting a lot of attention. Think it has been "advertised" --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

It is, and it was. Unfortunately I'm not sure what we can do about it, as established editors are saying "keep". It's frustrating to spend so much time fighting spam, only to see instances like this when blatant spam is condoned, or at least allowed because "we shouldn't remove anything!" Wikipedia as a whole isn't taking spamming serious enough, in my humble opinion, and the problem is only going to get worse; as Wikipedia's popularity continues to rise, it will increasingly become a target for those who seek to profit from it. </rant> --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:27, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

With you - there are times when the anarchy (mine) on Wiki is the is the only thing that keeps me going <g>. I am watching the Logo one (obviously) but haven't seen a way to be useful - let me know if there is --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:29, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

netshops spammer - keep an eye on

So, I found 66.37.239.14 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) (already reported on AIV) today, filling up articles with all kinds of various spam. Lo and behold, the only real edit that this address has had is to NetShops a company that has websites which sell niche products. Go figure. I think that this is something for people to keep an eye on. - Trysha ^(talk) 19:34, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Victoria Jean (talk · contribs) and IronCannibal (talk · contribs) added several links, and 72.198.209.196 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) chipped in two more. Both IPs found so far appear to be in Omaha, and not surprisingly, the article says the company is based in Omaha. I get the impression that if we had a full list of the company's domains we would find more spam. ~~Below is my list of domains so far~~. Wmahan . 00:14, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Replaced it with a full list from NetShops.com according to their see all stores page: ( # | # | # | # | # |# | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # | # )

Looks clean. Femto 15:28, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Nicely done, thanks. Wmahan . 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Advameg

A company apparently following a similar model to the one above is "Advameg". I reverted spam by different users from two unrelated articles before realizing that the domains were owned by the same company.

Accounts: see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Zdrv
IPs: 67.163.18.29 (talk · contribs), 69.217.59.174 (talk · contribs), 24.14.148.207 (talk · contribs), 82.210.185.92 (talk · contribs), 208.54.95.129 (talk · contribs) (shared IP also used for other spam)
Domains: americanforeignrelations.com | chemistryexplained.com | city-data.com | everyculture.com | faqs.org, | fashionencyclopedia.com | filmreference.com | foodbycountry.com | healthofchildren.com | howmade.com | madehow.com | minddisorders.com | mythencyclopedia.com | nationsencyclopedia.com | notablebiographies.com | referenceforbusiness.com | scienceclarified.com | stateuniversity.com | surgeryencyclopedia.com | unexplainedstuff.com | weatherexplained.com

Advameg uses copyrighted content licensed from Thomson Gale, plus ads (see this blog entry). Many of the links appear to have been added by established users, so they should not be removed indiscriminately. There's still a lot left to be cleaned up. Wmahan . 22:12, 30 September 2006 (UTC)