Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2005 Archive

message: Perhaps I could be a good case model to argue over, as I am against link-spamming, but do not consider what I did to fall so neatly into that category.  
After deleting/reverting my entry to some sections, Jdavidb wrote: "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. See the welcome page if you would like to learn more about contributing to our encyclopedia. Thanks."  What to do when someone is trying to insert links that represent a news and analysis service, such as what I did for Thinking-East?  Is it still spam when it's links to articles and arguments that might actually enrich the reader's knowledge of the entry?  
Most of my edits I tried to insert at the bottom or in separate sections (usually "Articles") so as not to disturb the continuity, and also to start up a new section in the entry. As to the syntax/format of such links, I've never noticed any uniformity. -Mahmoud September 21, 2005
:I just want to add that Thinking-East gets all its coverage from Kygyz, Uzbek and Tajik students actually in Central Asia.  It's very important for us that this service exists, even if it was started by two Westerners.  I'm a fan, so they don't know about my posting all over Wikipedia.  If what I did is link-spamming, please don't it let reflect badly on who I did it for.
Well, it's great if you have links that can actually "enrich the reader's knowledge of the entry."  But here are some considerations:
* It is certain that you do not have a site that needs to be linked to from that many articles.  You added links to over a dozen.
* If it's your site, or a site you just love very much and wish to promote, then you should not be the one to add the links.  If the site is really all that informative, then someone who does not run the site will add it.  I don't add links to my own sites, and neither should you.  You and I are not unbiased enough to decide that our sites are relevant enough to be linked to from a Wikipedia article.  (Even though mine certainly are. :) )
* The fact that something is "a news and analysis service" doesn't give it a gold pass to be inserted into Wikipedia articles willy nilly.  Anybody and their dialup account can set up a "news and analysis service."  Unless the "news and analysis service" is The New York Times or Time magazine or something everybody on the planet already accepts as "news" (and even those are not infallible) it does not gain any magic claims to relevance or credibility by calling itself that.  Many such "services" are nothing more than POV-pushing.
* If you have ONE (1) link that is relevant to ONE (1) article, you can discuss it with that articles editors on the article's talk page.  Be aware that such discussions are slow.  Mentioning it on the talk page and seeing no response for six hours does not mean you have consensus.
* Get an account and do something to contribute to Wikipedia more than just inserting links to websites.  People who show that they are committed to building a good encyclopedia have standing to argue that a link will enhance an article.  People who are instead committed to other websites do not.
* This discussion should have happened on the talk page, not this page itself.  It will be moved there, and future discussion should occur there. Jdavidb 16:42, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Disputes 

message: Sounds like you are taking this issue seriously. But you sound a bit trigger-happy in your definitions and enforcement.
:JediMaster16 02:25, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That may be so, but I figure we can start out slightly too aggressive and tone down from there.  Mainly I just want to quit giving spammers the chance to debate us for six months, as if they actually had some kind of standing to speak here when they prove day after day that they are only interested in promoting their sites rather than building an encyclopedia.  In all cases I propose that spam fighters defer to the regular editors of each article; if those editors deem a removed link relevant, they can freely add it back in. Jdavidb 02:35, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Taking this issue seriously 

message: * - replaced Wikipedia:Introduction 3 with a link to his site(also on his user page).  Watch for a few weeks, then ignore if nothing more happens.
*Talk:IP address - astonishingly persistant editor pushing his site that provides a lookup-your-IP-address service.  Finally e edited eis site to contain a lot of text, re-added it to the article, and there it's rested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 18:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  My various efforts 

message: I came here after seeing User:Perfecto's edit summary here. How about a standardized edit summary to raise awareness both of the problem and this particular effort? Something like:
:Removed link spam. Wikipedia is NOT a link directory. Join Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam to help!
Perhaps that's too verbose. I think a link to WP:NOT is important, though, as is an explicit description of the action taken. Any thoughts? —HorsePunchKid→龜 2005-12-06 05:21:25Z
:Yes, and it certainly works for other various fixup WikiProjects.  WP:NOT is too broad though, IMO.  Wikipedia:Spam is better.  We would want a concerted viral marketing strategy involving a project page, the guideline page, a user message template, a cleanup tag, a category and a dash of mentions in help pages, FAQs and fixup templates. -- Perfecto  04:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Standardized edit summary? 

message: Last night, I did some further cleanup of external links on Hybrid vehicle.  This brought response from a user, regarding an "op-ed" article external link that was deleted.  A little detective work, revealed significant conflicts-of-interest by the person that added the link.  The link was added to (1) promote the article (2) POV-pushing (3) linkspam.  This is a different kind of linkspam to consider, as the user isn't selling a product or service.  See the talk page for details of my exchange with the user.  
If you have suggestions on how to handle these, please comment.  If nothing else, this can be an example of how to deal with a type of linkspam and cleaning links. ---Aude 00:22, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV link and promoting a site/article 

message: Abdullah II of Jordan is being linkspammed with a site that alludes to him being the antichrist. You can believe it too, the site is www.truthroom.com/article.php?article=1 and it is so important this article is number 1!!!  Pardon me while I primal scream now... Dominick (TALK) 17:41, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I'll look into it. -- Perfecto  18:13, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classic link spamming 

message: I'm building a user page on residual linkspam from the fisheaters nonsense at User:Just zis Guy, you know?/Linkspam, if anyone feels this would be better under this project please feel free to move it and/or add other articles with similar problems. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 20:14, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say zap the extern links when the article's gone. -- Perfecto  03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Initiate a proposal on the Talk page.  If no one objects, zap them all except reliable sources and the official site. -- Perfecto  03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did some trimming today. --Perfecto  18:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Linkspam 

message: This search:  shows >100 links to comicbookresources.com from Wikipedia.  The article for the site's forum, Comic Book Rumbles is up for AfD right now (and that article is itself one big vanispamcruftvertisement.  I'll check the links.
Update: http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details?q=&url=comicbookresources.com shows that it is popular, even thought he forum is not independently notable.  How much of that is down to extensive linking from Wikipedia I wouldn't like to speculate. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:05, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I say zap the extern links when the article's gone. -- Perfecto  03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  comicbookresources.com 

message: Any opinions on the links in this?  Multiple links to some sites, and dozens of interviews - do we need those? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 17:29, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Initiate a proposal on the Talk page.  If no one objects, zap them all except reliable sources and the official site. -- Perfecto  03:42, 1 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I did some trimming today. --Perfecto  18:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Grant Morrison]] 

message: Huge numbers of links that may or may not be useful as far as the article goes in Antichrist and End times. DIscovered it when looking at the Abdullah II of Jordan issue. Dominick (TALK) 20:21, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed the entire section from Antichrist and End times, since most of them were apparent POV (read: bigotry).  I didn't see any which were obvious sources for the article content (per [[[WP:EL]]). - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 12:30, 31 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  excessive linkings and cruft 

message: See Fathers' rights - the external links section is most of the article!  OK, not really, but there are three screenfulls of links, which is completely mad.
:I have added this article to Wikipedia:WikiProject External links#Articles_that_need_external_links_.27weeded.27.  I suggest moving this link to WikiProject Spam, maybe as Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/To-do.  A subpage like this can be incorporated on the main project page, as is done with Portals. —--Aude (talk | contribs) 22:58, 1 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I think the idea of a to-do list is great.  So the question is, how do we organise it?  Sections for to-do, in progress and done, and inclusion based on consensus here or on its own Talk page? - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C]  AfD? 14:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we already do have a todo list, problem is that this project is not so much focused on past spam (yes we are in a way) but more focused on what is being spammed right now in the present. The best way to get attention to an issue is just to post here, rather then having to maintain a todo list (we have one, and its not used that much). As far as this issue goes, I would just blank all the links, and start anew. —— Eagle101 Need help? 19:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links gone mad!