Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Sep

message: 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)  - user - .  Any one care to comment (&/or to talk page).  Thanks --Nigel  (Talk) 10:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Where2golf.com query 

message: Persistent travel-related spam from  |  |  |  | , creates one-time socks to reinsert links  |  |  |  | 
Links go to subdomains hosted at , , , .
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)
thread_title:  atspace / awardspace travel spam 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Second opinon (Solomon Key) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: orcmagazine

message: 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)
thread_title:  Neopets 

message: 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 () know of my posting.  Thanks & regards --Nigel  (Talk) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  just three links remain. Lynbarn 13:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Links to private railway site - further opinions please 

message: Just been chasing this link .  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Currently trying to get it blocked but still active - cheers --Nigel  (Talk) 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Birth certificate spam (UK) 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Userpage spam

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Dispute getting personal

message: 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)
thread_title:  Reminder for comments 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: Yep! Both ranges assigned to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. -- Donald Albury 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Noticed that afterwards - varied tastes at least!  I'll watch both I think - --Nigel  (Talk) 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Problem on '''Koi''' 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Another "survey"... 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Linkspam on [[Brazilian wax]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Note - i've removed them all - Trysha (talk) 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks! --Conti|✉ 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: I removed the site from 13 articles. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam or not spam? 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: A linkspammer confession

message: 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)
thread_title: Possible "heads up" page

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  dog food. 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  4288 enhancement 

message: 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! Mindmatrix 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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. Mindmatrix 16:44, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yikes! I have put in the request for a blacklist entry. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Can someone else watch this

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Did they link to it from the PETA article? :) --SB_Johnny|talk|books 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Panda sandwiches 

message: (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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  [[Intercultural competence]] 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Opinion needed about one link 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: I honestly can't tell if the removal of the links by  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)

text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Old-time radio-related links 

message: I have re-worded the  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)
thread_title:  Template:WPSPAM-invite 

message: I've noticed a relatively new editor  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)
thread_title:  Lattice Semiconductor 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: "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)

text: Very nicely done! /wangi 19:13, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd opinion 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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:  and ). 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Indian Eng. Literature links

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Fanfiction 

message: 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)
thread_title: Radio - join the discussion maybe

message: The first three templates:
: Please do not add commercial links or links to your own private websites to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or a mere collection of external links. You are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you.  
----
: Please stop adding commercial or personal-website links to Wikipedia. It is considered spamming, and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Thanks.  
----
: Please stop. If you continue to use Wikipedia for advertising, you will be blocked from editing.  
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 /, 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)
replies: text: Right, its long time that the wording of  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)
replies: text: 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)

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

text:  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)

text: I haven't found spam0 very useful, but it might be if modified to be the spam equivalent of . 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 . Wmahan. 14:46, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Rewording the spam templates 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Right now  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  instead of adding another template. Wmahan. 15:03, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Prevention or Cure!

message: Could someone else take a look at Mosaic and revert user  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)
thread_title:  Mosaic  

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Views on outside directories

message: The straw poll is getting a lot of attention.  Think it has been "advertised" --Nigel  (Talk) 17:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Logo - yes again

message: 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: , , , ,  (shared IP also used for other spam)
* Domains:  |  |  |  | , |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  |  | 
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)
thread_title: Advameg