Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Aug

message: Hey everyone. Can you keep an eye on someone who keeps adding his site? I have to go to bed.  I warned him and discussed the issue on my talk page, but he has continued to add back the links. It's to some forum or whatever for Google Earth. He only adds posts by a certain user so I'm assuming he's trying to make his posts get more "downloads". It is essentially a link to a Google Earth file, which requires Google Earth (And this is my assumption, I can't even open the file.) I have to go to bed, but if he keeps adding his links could you clean up and warn him again? If I'm in the wrong here please go ahead and let me have it. :) Mrtea (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There seem to be a lot of links to those forums, the ones I checked were not particularly informative (most threads at some point including one poster urging another to buy the premium google earth package). Nix 'em all? -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:15, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Typical spammer here.. 

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

message: Hi - fairly new to this so would pefer to do it right as far as I can.  I took links that I considered spam from a couple of pages today including Search engine optimization.  Then looking at the contribs of the IP I see they contributed (if putting links in is really that) to Corporate identity.  Looking at some of the other links on that page I consider them spam - am I wrong?  Equally am I right to be very suspicious of IP addresses whose only contribution is links?
Thanks & cheers -- Nigel 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're quite right. All the links at Corporate Identity were for services, products, or networking: stuff useful for people wanting help with corporate identity, not for encyclopedia readers who wanted help about corporate identity. I removed the lot of them. A good reference for this is the "What to link to" and "Links to avoid" sections of Wikipedia:External links. Thanks for bringing it up! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:55, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Appreciate the confirmation.  I'll feel more secure in reverts in future - thanks and enjoy life (tho I guess a few people won't be wishing us the same!). -- Nigel 18:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

text: *Yeah, the SEO guys have been blatantly linkspamming/advertising for some time.  In a few cases, they've even admitted it on talk pages.  Please delete these when encoutered. --Alan Au 23:23, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advice on spam please 

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

message: Someone has been adding links to  to dozens of articles about famous people. The site consists mainly of lists of quotations, with plenty of ads, of course.
This spammer goes beyond most others, though, in using a new account for each edit: to name only a few, CameronJK, LucyK1, LorrieL, LisaJK, RubyJ, LouisJ.
I removed all the links to the site about a month ago, but they are being re-added. I just requested that the site be added to the spam blacklist. Wmahan. 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Persistent spammer 

message: Not sure if this is said with a grin or not. On Resume I reverted a link as someone put in a link to a new site but left the original text.  Now I see they have put the site in as a new one - does " Note:  this is a genuine CV writing site, and not built just for advertising." on the site's front page allow anyone to make a decision on this one?  Regards -- Nigel 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reverted it. It looked like it was nothing but links to commercial resume writing services. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 13:39, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Donald - I like to think I will continue to both live and learn.  The statement on the site almost looked written for wiki to me. Cheers -- Nigel 14:19, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More advice! 

message: Why have you removed all my pages as Lonympics. I added legitimate pages and you have out of your way to remove every page i have done why are you going after me. This is not fair. You have not many any analysis of pages are fair you did not even state what you were doi ng you just removed every page id id. My pages are useful. Why have you removed them Why do you get pleasure from destroyiong people. Why? I want your phone number tell me who you are why are you doing this. This is not joke. You have no pitty no mercy you are cruel and vindictive, and so no tolerance of other sites that give useful information. Why are you doing this. Why do you take such pleasure from destroying people. Why? You want to destrioy me tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newuser123 (talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 August 2006  (UTC)
:Replied on your Talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:07, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note to other spam-hunters: Wikipedia pages that have lonympics.co.uk links. Judge for yourself. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:28, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Never mind, I went through the list and removed them all. Not a one was appropriate for the article it was on. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:55, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Newuser123 has been indefinitely blocked for extreme personal attacks --PTSE 14:45, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Had to remove another 3 Lonympics links today which were added by an anon IP user with no previous edits. It would appear the message is not getting through --PTSE 18:01, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup. This can be expected to go on for a while. I'll check for it on linksearch once a day or so. Just caught one by another IP (), reverted because it was rather intrusive on the article in question. SB_Johnny | talk 20:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would be happy to have more info on "linksearch" referred to if anyone feels like it.  Thanks -- Nigel  (Talk) 07:35, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Three more so far today from IP () Nelson50 14:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another 8 added and removed again.  Our friend is creating new accounts to continue his work (, ,  and ).  He is also trying to (unsuccessfully) circumvent the linksearch  --PTSE 02:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lonympics 

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

message: User:Sikh historian has been adding links to www.allaboutsikhs.com to various articles. My guess is that it's an attempt to promote the site, which has ads and an amazon.com store. However, I know almost nothing about the subject so I'm not sure if I should revert the links. Wmahan. 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed links, warned the editor.  Seems farily clear.  Kevin_b_er 07:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you, and nice work. Wmahan. 07:49, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  allaboutsikhs.com 

message: Mobile Marketing - I realise that in a sense that is what it is all about but there are a lot of external links that look spammy to me - anyone else?  Cheers -- Nigel | Talk 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Bleh that list is definitely unnecessary on such a small article. I've removed it completely --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:29, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Felt that way to me but thanks for the confirmation - cheers -- Nigel  (Talk) 15:36, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:48, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsure? 

message: In the last couple of days, an anon using IP addresses 220.226.7.157, 220.226.32.253 and 220.226.46.101 (Provider = Reliance, in India) has been adding links from various subpages of www.tipsmanual.com/How-to-fish-in-salt-water/ and www.tipsmanual.com/improve-child-reading/ to a few articles. All of the pages are loaded with Google ads. I've been reverting, but it seems to me that blacklisting www.tipsmanual.com will be the better solution. Any thoughts? -- Donald Albury(Talk) 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, an amateurishly-designed site full of banners and Google ads with short and nearly useless articles? Yeah, block on sight. Though, what's this blacklist you mention? — Saxifrage ✎ 23:05, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The fish spammer 

message: Not necessarily spam per se, but a company called MyWikiBiz has issued a press release offering a paid-for article writing service for companies. Looks like one to keep a close eye on. Oldelpaso 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hah! That's just a few miles down the road for me... maybe I should ask for a job? ;-). This should be interesting, to say the least. --SB_Johnny | talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a  user account, for what it's worth. Recent creations include The Family & Workplace Connection, Norman Technologies. First glance looks astoundingly decent. In case content gets 'defended' against differing views of unpaid editors, I'm going to draw the line though. Femto 15:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like Jimbo has intervened on this one - see User talk:MyWikiBiz. Oldelpaso 19:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Company offering vanity articles commercially?

message: Topic split from above
Yesterday I made a template (not "legal" by current rules, but maybe it's time to start a debate). Any thought on that as a tool for this kind of thing? --SB_Johnny | talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That template would be a godsent if "officially approved". I haven't seen much precendent though for deleting entire articles that are spam, though, so I think CSD would have to be expanded to explicitly include spam. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought it up on WP:CSD for discussion. SB_Johnny | talk 14:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yet another template (more kosher, I think): Template:PrSpam. This is a version of ((prod)), rather than ((db), allowing for quick tagging of "sparticles" (seem a good word?) -- SB_Johnny | talk 15:08, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, looks like the coding on that one is a bit above my head, but you get the idea. It amounts to an autofilling prod for articles of this sort, which shouldn't be too controversial if I (or maybe someone else) can get the thing to work properly. SB_Johnny | talk 15:23, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: db-advert, PrSpam

message: User:Elringo has added Atlas.ti, and links to it that seem just PR. I have no idea whether Atlas.ti is notable or not, so for the moment I've placed a warning on it and on his talk page. In the while, everybody's welcome to keep an eye on his contrib list. -- Sergio Ballestrero 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article itself might be notable enough for inclusion, but we certainly don't need all the external links to the site that he added. Good job. --AbsolutDan (talk) 14:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Unrelated to the spam project, but I've 'ed it as being non-notable. Most self-promotional software and company articles aren't. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed the prod tag because Atlas.ti is probably the leading software in its field (qualitative research - see eg: ). The article still reads a bit like an advert, but that can be edited. This is notable software IMO. -- zzuuzz (talk) 19:56, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough. I've added the link to the article's talk page, as I'm not sure where it would best go in the article. (I suspect it needs significant copy-editing to not read like an ad first.) Perhaps you can help with that? — Saxifrage ✎ 20:03, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

text: * ATLAS.ti is a moderately well known software package in the field of qualitative research, probably about as notable as Fraps or Epi Info.  That said, I've gone through and tried to strip out most of the commercial content.  Unfortunately, that doesn't leave much of the original article. --Alan Au 04:28, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Elringo]] and [[Atlas.ti]] 

message: Well everyone has been nice to me so far!  Delving round Wiki more and more, spam I can often recognise.  However I'm interested in the position on articles about companies.  I found this as a fully formed new page Osco %26 Sav-on and I stress I am not suggesting that this is an inappropriate article but I've seen a few that really do seem more corporate ad pages than encyclopaedia articles (I can hunt for more if anyone is interested).  Anyone point me towards a policy (I have looked but not really found anything so far) and the opinion of those here would interest me.  Thanks and regards -- Nigel  (Talk) 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Have a look at WP:CORP. SB_Johnny | talk 09:59, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  General query on company pages 

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

message: I'm seeing a lot of external link section edits by ... don't have a lot of time to go chaseing them today, but from what I saw they were all to the same website. --SB_Johnny | talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: For now, I'm assuming good faith from an individual who might be trying to crosslink articles with nutrition facts. Gave a mild spam warning. Doesn't mean the links need to stay though. Femto 18:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It looks like typical spam to me--all the links happen to go to the same site, which happens to have a fair amount of ads. I'm all for assuming good faith, but this seems to fit the profile of someone promoting a site. Wmahan. 20:37, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I didn't get ads, must be my browser settings again. Sure it's unneeded linkspam, I just don't want to go so far as to assume it's deliberate from someone knowing what they do. The user made earlier contributions, hadn't gotten a warning yet, nor reacted otherwise negatively. It should become clear enough if the links continue, however. Femto 11:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: All the spam links should be gone now Brian 21:03, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apparent linkfarmer... 

message: is adding links to their personal site to many Wikipedia articles. The clearest evidence of abuse is that the site is merely a copy of Wikipedia with added advertising: essentially, the links being added to articles just go to a copy of the article with ads! The word "preposterous" comes to mind... — Saxifrage ✎ 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, of course. Remove links on-sight --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia-clone-plus-ads spammer 

message: , who was block on 15 July 2006 for spamming, is at it again. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeat spammer 213.165.182.233 

message: It seems there is a whole genre of sites mass-adding links to interviews with music celebrities. I'm not sure where they get their content, but I started compiling a list here.
There are two especially egregious examples that I haven't removed all the spam for yet:
# djbooth (linksearch), spammed by , , , , , , , and probably others
# aceshowbiz (linksearch), spammed by , , , , , , , and doubtless many more
The second one in particular seems to be using a new anon IP for each edit or two, which makes it difficult to separate the spam from any links that might have been added in good faith. Wmahan. 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ugh, looks like cleanup of the latter is going to be a nice weekend project. I've posted a request to the blacklist thing on meta here: . Hopefully this'll help with the spamming going forward, at least. --AbsolutDan (talk) 01:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well at least the aceshowbiz links are all listed as "Joe Blo info" which makes it easy to spot those which are most likely illegitimate. Pascal.Tesson 01:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks to AbsolutDan for requesting the blacklist and to whoever cleaned up the rest of the djbooth links. Wmahan. 04:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Gracias, Max --AbsolutDan (talk) 19:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lots of interview spam 

message: Found this on Italy - www.worldwide-tax.com/italy/indexitaly.asp -- and have seen similar on other countries pages today - any views?  -- Nigel  (Talk) 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It looks like  added many of the links along with some other spam, so I think they should be removed. Another user who added one link and may or may not be related is . Wmahan. 17:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spotted a new one? 

message: See linksearch result. This is a commercial wiki... it has good content, but not sure why it needs to be linked to quite as much as it is. SB_Johnny | talk 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree - content seems ok, does irritate when the multiple links go in.  I think they probably should be pruned - site could still be found via some wiki linked pages - looks like someone has some work to do (would help but strictly speaking I'm at work!). I guess a message to the contribuor too?  Cheers -- Nigel  (Talk) 14:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Not sure about this one... 

message: I've created  to make linking to Special:Linksearch results easier—no more having to copy and paste.
Usage:
:
Gives you:
:
Full usage instructions are on the template page. Enjoy! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's useful. Nice job! Wmahan. 19:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Nice! BUT: is there any way this template could be made a bit more "dummy-friendly".. i.e. not requiring the *. to make it work? --SB_Johnny | talk 00:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't actually need the *. to work: that's part of what I generally look for. If you read Special:Linksearch, you can search for "example.com" or "*.example.com". The former will only get example.com links, while the latter will get www.example.com, foo.example.com, my.sub.site.example.com, and so forth. If we'd never employ the former use though, it ought to be done by the template automatically. Should I change it? — Saxifrage ✎ 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Thanks for fixing it up. It doesn't actually need the url encoded since it only ever takes a domain name (and they can't contain spaces), but it certainly can't hurt! Thanks especially for cleaning up the second-argument handling—I'm not really up with the more complex uses of template substitution and I was kinda shooting in the dark in getting that to work. — Saxifrage ✎ 01:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, you can.  You can search for *.example.com/a path/to/a/directory, and it will work.  Useful for popular hosting sites which use subdirectories.  Geocities is an example.  I need to  tweak it a little bit more so it will subst: cleanly, but getting that to work just right will take me some time (and won't be done live).  Kevin_b_er 02:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  By the way, does anybody know if the code for linksearch itself is available? I looked through the MediaWiki svn repository not long ago but didn't see it. Wmahan. 03:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Is this it? Femto 15:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. I didn't think to look there. Thanks! Wmahan. 16:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Well strike me blue, I did not know that. Thanks for the improvements and the lessons. :) — Saxifrage ✎ 16:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  New utility template 

message: I reverted a number of links to  and  placed in articles by . He then posted this to my talk page. He has re-added the links to a couple of aricles after I posted the  tag on his talk page. Beause he has proteste to me, I'm bringing this back here for other opinions. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: LOL! Looks to me like he linkspammed the articles, then text-spammed your userpage. I'll look around. --SB_Johnny | talk 12:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In part I got to wiki thro the quality of info on software products without stacks of ad links.  What does annoy me about the people isn't necessarily A link which might be useful but the multiple links /rant over.  To me an ip address only posting multiple links seems to be in a position where they have to justify themselves.  This one doesn't.  Regards -- Nigel  (Talk) 14:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

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

message: www.westlord.com on 41 articles . Pyb 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: My opinion - spam (and amazon and other links on the front page of the site).  Regards -- Nigel  (Talk) 14:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Uninteresting advertising-heavy site with a bunch of personal opinions on celebrities. Likely spam, definitely does not qualify as "adding something beyond what the article can offer" in WP:EL. — Saxifrage ✎ 16:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yup. Nuke 'em. SB_Johnny | talk 18:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try to find the source for a few.  It may be naturally spreading links.  Though so far its not looking good:
*Adrian Brody [] 
*Michael Chiklis [] 
*Gabrielle Union [] 
*Eva Green [] 
*Vincent Cassel [] 
Very similar range, each IP with only 1 edit.  Many of them appear to be like this, and that's way too big of a range to check with some of the tricks I know.
But this one's not in range, and not formatted the same:
*Melissa_George [] 
The similar IPs are, GOLDENLINES-ADSL with a country code of IL (Israel).  And the domain, westlord.com is registered there.  Starting to look like spam.  I'll gather more diffs if we need to double-check more of them. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I will request that this one be added to the spam blacklist as well. --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Removed a few as well, might get around to removing the rest later --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:23, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam ? 

message: This one is quite active at present  on a number of pages.  Site doesn't seem tooo bad but it's the multiple postings that bug me - anyone?  -- Nigel  (Talk) 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks like spam to me and I deleted them all as such. It's a .com site, the page linked to is clearly for commercial purposes and the information on the page is of no use for verification of information or notability of the subject of the article. Links to .com sites can be ok, but when I add up all the factors along with the multiple postings, I conclude SPAM. Also, several of the articles, as currently written, are not likely to survive - I've tagged them for wikification, importance and sources (and the link I deleted was not a valid source). If they're not improved I'll come back and PROD them in a week or so ... Brian 18:36, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accountancy one 

message: There are many links to marriage dot about.com (), added by a variety of anonymous IPs (, , , and  are the ones I've found so far). The volume and placement of the links seem suspicious, but I don't have time to investigate further right now. Wmahan. 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't see any obvious connection between the IPs. Also, *about.com links are fairly prevalent here, I think there's even a template for about.com links. Might want to let this one slide unless particular user/group is definitively spamming such links --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:49, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Marriage spam? 

message: This anonymous user placed a couple pornography related links into a couple articles and then immediately removed them himself.  While the articles don't have the links anymore the history of course still does, which may increase a ranking on a search engine.  Could someone more experienced with spam on Wikipedia look into this? Ziggur 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since it's only a couple, it probably isn't anything we need to be worried about. Probably just someone experimenting. I've left  on their talk page, if they come back hopefully they'll get the message --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:46, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

text: P.S. AFAIK, search engines go by the current copy of an article, so what's in the history shouldn't be reflected in the rankings --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:47, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History spamming 

message: So what to do about the untravelled road links?  They're clearly self-promotion.  The author is even keeping them up to date.  I'm a bit nevous about removing that many at once though.  Not sure its proper.  Need more opinions and such.  Kevin_b_er 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it violates WP:EL "A website that you own or maintain, even if the guidelines above imply that it should be linked to. This is because of neutrality and point-of-view concerns; neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, and a difficult one. If it is relevant and informative, mention it on the talk page and let other — neutral — Wikipedia editors decide whether to add the link." - I'll go delete the links ... Brian 03:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're all deleted now (and on my watchlist in case they come back) ... Brian 05:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Untravelled Road

message: When adding a link to a particular user, the most useful way to do it is by using the form , which, if you were talking about me would look like this: . That way we can move straight to the talk or contribs (whichever is relevant), without having to go to the userpage and clicking through form there (I.e., don't use the form User:SB_Johnny, which often is even more annoying because it leads to an edit age when the link is red. --SB_Johnny | talk 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No. It's not really used for signing your own comments, just for when you're mentioning a user. If you want help adding color to your sig, ask me on my talk :). --SB_Johnny | talk 18:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Just a suggestion 

message: Animal articles on Wikipedia are rapidly gaining links to ARKive.org. While the organisations aims are admirable, should we be linking so heavily to a site asking for doantions? I tend to remove the links if we have pictures on wikipedia or in the commons and leave it if we don't. What do other people think?--Peta 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Many many links seem to have originated from 195.188.139.172.  Digging up more sources of who inserted it will help determine the spam-level of it.  Kevin_b_er 04:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 427 links - don't think the word excessive would be too stong in my view? -- Nigel  (Talk) 08:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say case-by-case for that... the site is well-referenced if nothing else. You might want to bring this up at WP:TOL to see if they're actually adding anything to the articles, or are just linkfarms.--SB_Johnny | talk 11:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I asked them here. --SB_Johnny | talk 11:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ARKive.org

message: Ok - I reverted a number of these the other day  and placed a spam warning on the user talk page  (he deleted but I've commented on it).  He is of the opinion it is not spam (his comments are on his talk page).  In view of that fact that I was involved in the original deletion I felt I should bring it to this page for other opinions.  My view hasn't changed (the fact that other sites are on the pages only means I know what I'll do when I get a minute) - its spam in my mind but I know I shouldn't be judge jury and executioner! -- Nigel  (Talk) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree it's spam and I left a message explaining why on their talk page. — Saxifrage ✎ 21:00, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would agree.  Bad form to have edits centered around promoting a particular website, including creating dictdef entries which describe the activity of the website.  Those dictdefs created may need to be sent to the deletion process later as well.  I'll prod them after a little while. Kevin_b_er 05:33, 19 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Meant to get back before - thanks for the comments --Nigel  (Talk) 09:24, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  2nd opinions - provalusa 

message: See for yourself on the history of Audio mastering. To me it looks like several competing spammers, but maybe I'm too sensitive? See also User_talk:66.214.253.155 and the contributions of , , , . -- Han-Kwang 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: for me the convincing issue the the multiple attempts to put the links in.  The two on the page I went too both seem to be selling as much as offering any information.  Cheers --Nigel  (Talk) 09:36, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd opinion - Audio mastering

message: I made this template and on request of an other user I added a link to the source that I most often use when I add the template to articles. I'm not affiliated with the USDA, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate that that site is linked to so many times (potentially 100s of times) -- Han-Kwang 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The USDA doesn't need any help from Wikipedia for promotion; I can't imagine it would be a problem. JesseW, the juggling janitor 05:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Where else would you get the information?  A website with ads?  Needs a source, might as well make it a government one. Kevin_b_er 03:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2nd opinion - Nutritional value template

message: I guess this isn't spam in a sense but is a list of "eating out places" & "pubs" ok for wiki?  If I take it out there will not be a lot left but I'm not sure if it's what I expect? --Nigel  (Talk) 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In any case, judgements such as "great beer" certainly don't belong here. The rest of the info is more appropriate for wikitravel. I suggest to summarize them as "seven pubs and 12 restaurants" or something like that. Han-Kwang 18:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Billingshurst]] 

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

message: I'm starting a project to mine http://findarticles.com (a very large archive of magazine articles, may of which are free in full text); I describe the project in a bit more detail here: User:JesseW/findarticles.com.  As it will involve adding many external links to the same web domain, I thought I'd mention it here for comments and thoughts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You are entirely welcome to change any links to articles you can find at original sites or non-comercial archives to those copies (although it would probably be best to maintain the other URLs somewhere, in case of link rot).  I haven't found most of the material at findarticles elsewhere, but I'd be delighted if you can.  I presume you don't object to the addition of the sources, just to using findarticles when something else is available? JesseW, the juggling janitor 20:44, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I assume that in instances where this is used, that there will be a proper citation of the original article, with the findarticles.com link serving as the web link within the cite? If so I find that perfectly ok, assuming of course the original is not available online. --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Findarticles.com links added by me 

message: Not spam as such but found this one (http://iloveahvaz.xlphp.net/) DON'T click without reading the rest!  According to McAfee SiteAdvisor - "Our analysis indicates that this site may be designed to trick you into submitting your personal or financial information to online scammers."  Thought people should be aware of it.  As a ps - how would it be best to "show" such a site in a public forum? Cheers --Nigel  (Talk) 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The page contains a refresh to a framed subpage which escapes from the original address, McAfee presumably (over)reacts to that. Security software companies have no reason to hold back occasional unspecific alerts showing that their product is worth its money and works. Unless there is other evidence (like malicious JavaScript, won't check or run that), I'd assume this site is only some ad-based hosting service. Femto 12:23, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Heads up on a possible dodgy site 

message: I removed some links from organic light-emitting diode recently, which made a few of the website owners unhappy. One agreed to request that a neutral editor add their link on the talk page, but two other site owners are re-adding their links, even though I said on the talk page that I would not object if the links were approved by a neutral editor not affiliated with a website. Wmahan. 19:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did some cleanup on the page. Han-Kwang 20:22, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks, that's much better. Wmahan. 20:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Organic light-emitting diode 

message: has been blocked before, and is at it again. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: FYI, he's on a 48 hour block now, we'll see what happens when it expires. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User:DavidN2 again 

message: I took a few of these out earlier .   - only contributions were these (and in bold!).  I took the view it was spam (& still do).  However some of the links have been reverted by another editor with the comment that it's a "good guide".  Views & thanks --Nigel  (Talk) 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Frankly, I could live with that link. This sounds like a perfect case of WP:EL's point 4 of what should be linked to: Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article. Just my 0.02 though. Pascal.Tesson 16:15, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK & opinion appreciated - thanks --Nigel  (Talk) 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The usual 2nd opinion stuff 

message: I'm just leaving so could someone check this guys edits. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He/She appears to have switched from the english version to the german version of that panorama website.  Kevin_b_er 19:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 84.136.71.53

message: I don't know if this quite files under the heading of 'spam', but these two pages appear to be advertising. I'll let you take the necessary actions. Black-Velvet 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorted Breakthrough.  Think someone should prod (?) the other but not got the time at present.  Cheers --Nigel  (Talk) 12:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. --AbsolutDan (talk) 12:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Dan - it was lunchtime (here!) & I didn't have the time - cheers --Nigel  (Talk) 17:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising: [[Breakthrough]] & [[Breakthrough: Building Human Rights Culture]] 

message: OK not sure about this.  It's been speedy delete and was removed, it's been prod'ed (by me) and it was removed, it's been blanked & I reverted it.  It does get quite a lot of google hits.  I was about to AfD it but I really am not sure enough - wiser brains please.  The recent edit/improvement is the only contribution of the editor.  Thanks --Nigel  (Talk) 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd say send it to AfD. Since it's a discussion and not a death sentence, an AfD is an good venue to discuss and determine whether the company warrants an article. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Disc makers]] opinion