Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jul

message: Kevin_b_er has a good point, but as I'm the one who made the wikibook, I'll recuse myself from moving or deleting the wikihow link. Perhaps a poll for future reference? SB Johnny 11:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Straw poll

message: It has been suggested that I post a concern that has come up recently on the commercial links on Erik Rhodes (porn star) which link to commercial sites selling pornography. The creator of the page insists that they are legitimate links to reviews of the film and the actor. Reading this project, it seems to me to be just for self linking to personal sites, but it was suggested that I post here. Would appreciate others reviewing this. The subject came up when the article which I originated on the actor Eric Rhodes who performed with Fred Astair and Ginger Rogers in Top Hat and the Gay Divorcee was moved with the creation of this new page. Any insight and review i.e. help from other editors appreciated. Doc 17:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: A bit out of my genre, but they seem like genuine reviews. OTOH there were very large amount of cookies I was asked to accept while loading a linked pages. SB Johnny 18:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So are we not to be concerned with the volume of ads on the page? Also please check out the external links in the Filmography section which actually link to the sites where the pornography is for sale. Thanks Doc 18:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Commercial links

message: See contrib page for TerraCycle: . The article is about the company, but in the edit notes he keeps talking about "my page".
He's also linking to that article from various articles I'm watching. Nix 'em all? (Putting the ((spam)) thing on his page now). SB Johnny 19:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: They're still at it as nearest as I can tell.  Lots of internal linking. Kevin_b_er 07:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I took out the links from the other articles (there were no other links there of that vein), but not sure what to do next. Articles about companies are allowed, but it's pretty clear this article was written by one of the owners (Also uploaded a copywritten image by "Steven Germain", which I assume is the user's actual name). SB Johnny 10:34, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Subject is fine, but article could definitely use a hefty NPOV copyedit.  --Alan Au 21:38, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  OK, '''''this''''' is spam, right? 

message: Continuing the endless task of cleaning up hotel articles... I found this page List of hotels in Sabah and was wondering what the best course of action was.
# leave it alone
# delete all the external links but keep the list
# nominate for deletion
# prod
Oh and in case everyone wonders: Sabah is a part of Malaysia. Pascal.Tesson 22:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put it up for prod. If that fails AFD. Petros471 22:57, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I proded it as well and I put a notice up on his user page. Which is optional but a nice thing to do. BJK 00:01, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Thx to both of you. Pascal.Tesson 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another request for advice 

message: I posted the following on the talk page of WP:SPAM. I'd be interested in getting opinions from project members, thx. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the spam guideline is a bit too narrow in scope and leaves the door open to more subtle forms of advertisement. There is an ongoing AfD debate on ABCOffice in which the user fighting for keep (User:ABCOffice.com) complains that Office Depot or Staples get an unfair advantage because their articles describe, for instance, their policy of "low price guarantee". To a certain extent that latter information can be considered as NPOV but I think that still should be considered as using Wikipedia as a vehicle for advertising. I think the spam guideline should include a section that specifically deals with what is fair game in such cases. Pascal.Tesson 15:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  cross-posting about advertisement vs spam 

message: Might be interesting to check out Talk:The Legend of Zelda series/landofthelegend.net.  Also it would be nice to get some actual comments as no-one seems to be watching WP:RFC/ART. — Ian Moody (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  landofthelegend.net 

message: You can remove spam from the main page, and the talk page. But what about the History? I have 'spammed' the history of this page, as an example.
Artbristol 00:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:POINT -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Apologies. But have you any suggestions on how to prevent it? Artbristol 00:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea how to prevent it per se, but my (limited) understanding is that search engines don't pick up edit summaries, which of course would reduce the incentive to spam there. Can anyone confirm/deny this?  --Alan Au 00:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If worst comes to worst, admins have a means for cleaning egregious stuff out of histories, although I don't know if any of them would use it for spam. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 00:59, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is anyone else worried about this? 

message: I'm caught in a heated discussion about the content of the Office Depot article. I'm wondering whether I did indeed overreact by deleting two large sections of the article and would very much like to have others weigh in on the talk page Talk:Office Depot. Thanks. Pascal.Tesson 16:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  request for comments 

message: User:Livedive is currently spamming a long list of articles with a commercial link. I'm trying to revert him, but I'm not an admin, and it's slow. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:36, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, and given final warning. Report to WP:AIV if continues. Petros471 17:40, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for jumping in so fast. He says he didn't know, and won't do it again, but I will try to watch. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 17:47, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Link spamming in progress 

message: See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Physics#Massive insertion of Scientific American links. - An IP registered to Scientific American inserts external links to their online articles. There's disagreement whether it's an improvement to Wikipedia, or spamming. Opinions welcome. Femto 18:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've added my $0.02 there. Seems like spam to me. I also agree with the slippery-slope point. Imagine what would happen if we started allowing every "relevant" magazine article on a topic such as Environmentalism or Global warming. We'd just end up with a lot more WP:SPAMHOLE articles. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:16, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Scientific American 

message: User  has added links to necsi.org in 12 of the 14 contribs they have made so far. After looking over the edits & the website it looks like they are borderline spam. What does everyone else think? -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  03:08, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Eh it's flamebait (someone's bound to say "but they're useful articles!"). But, (you know me) I say they're spam. They don't serve as a citation for any of the content (and no, simply making it look like a reference does not a citation make). Big picture - if someone were truly trying to add useful info here, they'd be at the very least be adding links to different websites. Adding links to the same website across many articles says that you're at the very least biased in favor of that website. --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I removed the spam contribs from  and added the standard spam message to the user's talk page. Thanks again. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  23:15, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, as a professor I get repeated email spam from necsi. Pascal.Tesson 01:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  65.96.127.125 

message: Currently adding links to articles leading to the same site. (Judging by the username, I'm guessing he's spamming). SB Johnny 16:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep sure looks like it. I think i've seen some spam from explorebiodiversity.com before. Psst... you forgot to sign your post on his talk page --AbsolutDan (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Adding links to the same site to multiple articles is considered spamming. Adding links to websites that you maintain or are affiliated with is also considered spamming. Please refer to WP:SPAM (Wikipedia guidelines regarding spam). Besides, external links don't help articles much - what we really need is more cited content. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[user:Robnelsonfilms]] 

message: There are some ongoing discussions at Wikipedia:External links that could use wider participation.  The page is currently protected after <biased_version_of_events> odd resistance to a straightforward series of edits </biased_version_of_events> but more eyes would be useful. - brenneman {L}  01:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion at Wikipedia:External links 

message: This looks very similar to the above case. User:Amwebb (contribs) created Cluster Resources, Inc. and then proceeded to load numerous articles with links to this article and also with external links to the corp's website (try searching for Cluster Resources, for example). I'm just starting to look into it now. Since this was done a while ago, I suspect a lot of the spam has since been cleaned up. Should Cluster Resources, Inc. be AfD'd? JonHarder 23:05, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting. I prod'ed the article.  I'll see what comes of that. Kevin_b_er 07:41, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comment. I agree that the language and emphasis of Cluster Resources, Inc. sounds somewhat like advertising, but I think it's probably worthwhile to keep and allow it to be cleaned up further. Their products (such as Maui Cluster Scheduler) are fairly well-recognized within the grid and cluster computing space. -- Bovineone 02:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  User Amwebb & Cluster Resources, Inc. 

message: I invite you to a discussion which has spam considerations on:
Wikipedia_talk:External_links#chainki.org_links
Brusselsshrek 21:04, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  chainki.org links 

message: I replaced the External Links section with a link to dmoz; however, I found that an anonymous user was contributing links to specific religious sites. What should I do? His/Her IP address is: 67.71.47.41
Foxjwill 22:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: He added 27 links to one article!  Most of them to the same site too. Revert any other similar spamming on sight --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Terrorism]] 

message: Hello all, great work, great project, thanks so very much! I just want to point out a new thing I came across tonite. Here, you can see this user adding 15 or 20 commercial links into articles, but doing so within a DIV STYLE="Display:None" element, so they don't actually show up when you view the page. There's even a sad little note included in comments: [We are delicate. We do not delete your content.] An apology, of sorts, I suppose.
It's not clear to me what end they hope to achieve, but it is clear that this can't be any better for us than any other spam or vandalism. I brought this to User:JesseW who suggested I mention it here, as well as over at Vandalism, to Tawker, CVU and Lupin, all of which I'm doing now. Anyone else? Pls let me know, but I think that should be enough ppl who care about this sort of thing. Hope this helps :) Eaglizard 05:52, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just trying to hide the link in hopes we won't see it, I guess. As I and, I believe, many other editors work our watchlists by looking at diffs rather than the pages, we will generally find such things pretty quickly. Of course, if an article isn't on the watchlist of someone who regularly looks at diffs, these things can sit around for a while. -- Donald Albury(Talk) 11:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is done to stack the websites for google searches (i.e., the more links there are to a site, the higher the site appears on a google search page). I wonder if this shows up on a wikisearch though (since the "text" of the url doesn't appear in the "text" of the page). This IP should be blocked permantently, as this could potentially waste a lot of server space if it goes too far. If the spammer is saavy (which he certainly appears to be), this could spiral into a large issue rather quickly, especially since there are a lot of arcane articles floating about without a lot of people watching them. SB Johnny 11:41, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: By the way this is the whois result for that IP. Pascal.Tesson 17:23, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  That IP has been blocked. If we see more instances of that bot at work, we should probably add those links to the sitewide blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:39, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The thing that worries me about this is that there were multiple sites, and this could be a test by a professional linkspammer (in this case he told us he was a spambot, and may have been waiting to see how long it took us to catch him). If that's the case, blocking particular websites might not be effective over the long term, as he will presumably acquire new clients. I own a couple websites, and get at least 1 spam a day asking if I'd like to be at "the top of the google search page". SB Johnny 09:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thinking about it, I agree it was probably just a test, to find out if the links would show up or affect ratings if they were inserted like that, and how long they would last. It looked like a deliberately "by-hand" random selection of obscure articles in a misguided attempt to evade detection. What are the chances of anyone editing Little Saint Hugh of Lincoln, or having it on a watchlist?? Not remote enough, apparently. :) I think we can be heartened by the short time it did take to remove them (it always amazes me, that). In the long run tho, I'd think this is the sort of think bots are best suited for. There's zero reason I can think of to have any text in a display:none tag. I did post a notice of this to Tawker's tawk page, anyways. Eaglizard 09:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I tend to agree with Eaglizard. It's also useless, since most if not all search engines do not assign any value to hidden or white-on-white text or links, so I don't think they will insist. -- Sergio Ballestrero 11:32, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Strange New Spam?

message: I don't know if this has been answered because I can't be bothered to read through such a huge ream. (I've read it now, and it wasn't quite addressed.) As far as I read, though, I see that Sugarskane has made one of the common mistakes about the external link's policy and why it cites "neutrality and point-of-view concerns" for why editors ought not link to their own sites. So, here is the answer:
Surgarskane, you are misunderstanding what the neutrality and point-of-view concerns are. The neutrality and POV of the linked-to page is not the concern—that's taken care of by any number of other policies and guidelines. What the external links policy is concerned about is the POV and neutrality of the editor who is evaluating the link's worthiness for inclusion. You, being the maintainer of the site, cannot make neutral editorial decisions regarding links to your site. As such, you are expected to refrain from attempting to make such editorial decisions on Wikipedia's behalf, and allow other, neutral-regarding-your-site editors to make this decision on Wikipedia's behalf.
The editorial integrity of Wikipedia is important, and I hope you understand that even small editorial decisions such as what links to include in an article affect the integrity of Wikipedia's editorial process. I hope you can respect this rule as a responsible editor, even if you think you can be impartial in the evaluation of your own site. Sometimes, being neutral means removing yourself from a particular decision-making process. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutrality and point-of-view

message: User:Fused (contribs) and User:209.23.99.100 (resolves to fusedsolutions) are adding articles and links in order to promote "Fused Solutions." Articles created so far are Fused Solutions, KnowPlex, Cosource and Cosourcing. JonHarder 18:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That was taken care of quite hastily! All of those contributions have been reverted and all articles created have been double-proded... Pascal.Tesson 21:42, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fused Solutions 

message: IOP is a big respected publisher, but it looks like one their staffers could be going a little too far using an anonymous IP address. See the comments I put on his/her talk page.
On closer examination, it's possible this could be the tip of a big iceberg (218 links). That's even asssuming 75% of these are legitimate links posted by non-IOP users to specific papers.
I'm open to others' advice and help.--A. B. 18:43, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Institute of Physics Publishing spam 

message: It would be nice to hear someones opinion from this project on Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Laser Tag and WP:EL. Cheers! -- moe.RON talk | done | doing 18:20, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Laser Tag]] and [[WP:EL]]

message: Is adding links to Chamber of Commerce websites considered spam? See  here for an example of my question. I'd appreciate your opinions. Picaroon9288 17:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally, I've never had any objections to chamber of commerce sites, since they often has a (quasi) official status in regard to the locality.  On the other hand, I often delete "portal" links or sites purporting to represent that town (i.e., "Comprehensive Guide to All Things San Diego!") unless the site in question appears to be quite notable. I'd be curious to hear how others appoach that issue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:44, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: My 2 cents: Chamber of Commerce sites are in my mind just at the limit of what is acceptable because their responsibility is to promote the city in a slightly chauvinistic yet more balanced way than commercial portals. Pascal.Tesson 18:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd say it would depend on the content of the site. If it's just a web page with a mailing list, probably not. If it announces events, discusses history, etc., then it's useful.SB_Johnny | talk 10:21, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, SB_Johnny's suggestion is smarter and less arbitrary than the blind "accept all" that me and Ohnoitsjamie were suggesting. But in general, I think Chamber of Commerce sites should be given the benefit of the doubt, moreso than other commercial pages. Pascal.Tesson 13:53, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Concur re: giving chambers the benefit of the doubt. My opinion: CoC links should be to either main page or a factual sub-page with city overview (whichever is more NPOV). CoC links on other articles are probably spammy (for instance, if a port city added a CoC link to an article like "world shipping") --A. B. 15:26, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, all, for the opinions. Picaroon9288|ta co 03:07, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding Chamber of Commerce websites to towns 

message: Hi.  The above user has created an article on the company that he works for, and a link to the company website from the WiMAX page, suggesting both vanity and advertising.
I have reverted the link on the WiMAX page with a warning on his talkpage.  I reckon the DANCOM page should be tagged for deletion.  Can some of you take a look to verify that I am right on this before I actually do it?  Thanks. Nelson50 22:38, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've gone ahead and tagged it with  &  --AbsolutDan (talk) 21:29, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Mmsarfraz]] 

message: Hi, this user sees that his site is similar to other external links but does not appreciate that adding his own links is spam.  I left notes on his talk page related to his edits to Wireless mesh network and he seemed to accept this, but re-started today on Mesh network.  I have reverted the link, but just so the warnings are not always coming from me, can someone else take a look?  Thanks.  Nelson50 23:22, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mesh network itself needs to be cleaned out.  At first glance, the links there look like junk.  Kevin_b_er 00:07, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Added my two cents on his talk page. Pascal.Tesson 00:08, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User_talk:AaronKaplan|Aaron Kaplan]] 

message: . I have taken care of his edits for now, but just thought I'd let everyone know. Pascal.Tesson 05:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Update: anon  has picked up where Angeltsang left off and introduced multiple external links to www.foodeasy.com. Be on the lookout for other users adding those links. I used the EL locater tool to remove a number of these yesterday. Pascal.Tesson 15:23, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A new spammer 

message: IP user 65.211.193.185 (contribs) seems quite prolific with myspace spamming. SB_Johnny | talk 20:17, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The user received a 3 hour block. We'll see if he/she comes back afterwards --AbsolutDan (talk) 20:55, 25 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to be a spoilsport, but how is an artist's official MySpace page linkspam? Particularly music artists, of course. --Dhartung | Talk 00:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's disagreement about whether artists' myspace pages should be included at all - not in small part due to the fact that it's often difficult or impossible to determine whether the myspace page really is the group's official page. --AbsolutDan (talk) 00:14, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they have up-to-date tour data, that's usually a strong indicator that it's not just a fan fakester. If they have downloadable music, that's another -- MySpace does enforce the DMCA. I don't think they do pre-emptive verification, though. --Dhartung | Talk 01:07, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  heavy traffic spammer 

message: Just a request for some extra eyes to keep a watchout for links to reverent.org. The site has a number of non-encyclopedic quizes, typically comparing the work of a literary figure, artist or musician to random nonsense. There is a fairly persistent spammer who keeps adding these links to articles such as Amadeus, Edward Bulwer-Lytton, 1st Baron Lytton and Musical Instrument Digital Interface. They have been at it for over a year now.
These days the spammer is using a dialup account to get a different IP address for each link insertion (currently in the range 4.246.253.*). I've left some more spam warnings for them this morning - there is no guarantee that they will see them, but they have been warned before. I may have to move on to a range block. -- Solipsist 10:33, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Reverent.org persistent spammer

message: This is a case were User:66.195.135.194 (contribs), which resolves to collegeview.com, is adding links their own site. I've notified that IP. Perhaps all of these links need to be cleaned up. JonHarder 16:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I removed most of the links.  15:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  collegeview 

message: has created :category:North American Union and spread it across a very broad spectrum of articles. He seems to have categorised anything to do with NA politics or physical infrastructure with the tag. I have asked him not to category-spam on his talk page and am about to start removing the cat from all but the most overwhelmingly-relevant articles. I'm leaving the category itself alone for the category-maintainers to deal with as they see fit. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "North American Union" category spammer 

message: A fairly new user (user's talk) has been adding links to various gardening blogs, mostly to the article Gardening blog, which he/she started. It's clearly (to me) a good-faith effort so far as wanting to make a positive contribution, but a bit over the top when it comes to WP:EL (or possibly WP:SPAM, but I don't think the intention is there in this case). Any thoughts? The user has already accused me of biting, so I'm recusing myself from deleting the links on the article for now. SB_Johnny | talk 21:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The links are definitely outside of what WP:EL and WP:RS allow on the pages other than Gardening blog, and there I believe that WP:NOT (a links directory) applies. Gardening blog itself looks like it can be a useful article, quite apart from the links issue. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:09, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I think the issue on that page it the NOT issue. I get the feeling the user genuinely meant "this is what a garden blog is, and here's some examples". SB_Johnny | talk 22:54, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's my impression too. I already left a note on the article talk page that I'll be removing the links soon unless there is compelling reason to keep any of them. — Saxifrage ✎ 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Article is now AfD, as of yesterday. SB_Johnny | talk 10:36, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Outside views, please... 

message: Sspillers has been adding a significant amount of external links to many scattered bios. Along with the links are quotes that person made. I don't think these quotes are important to include, as they don't seeem to be famous quotes from that person, just quotes made in an interview with the website of the organization these links point to. I don't have time right now to examine this in closer detail though, so I leave this one in the project's capable hands. Thanks --AbsolutDan (talk) 23:36, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for removing these, but I'd like to see if someone else agrees with me.  It looks like a link used to exist to that site on several of these articles, but I see no reason to have 3 links add to different pages for the same site (making 4 for each article).  The 4 links seems excessive.  Kevin_b_er 05:24, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One link is sufficient to this site.  It is very easy for someone to navigate to the other links.  These other three should be removed.  -- Dcflyer 05:32, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would remove the lot myself, since this bears all the hallmarks of vanispamcruftisement. Just zis Guy you know? 13:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Sounds good to me.  --  Dcflyer 03:57, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Achievement.com links 

message: *(diff) -   - chandelier-guide
*(diff) -   - flashlight-guide
This spam is obviously related. Seen any others? Femto 13:14, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No way to tell... though there seem to ba a lot of pages with multiple links to blogspot: google result. SB_Johnny | talk 13:26, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  blogspot.com guides 

message: Today we I have reverted spam edits that added external links to mayoclinic.org web pages on several articles. All of the edits were made from the 129.176.151.x ip range, which is registered to the Mayo Clinic College of Medicine. So far I have identified  and  as contributing to this, but their may be more. Anyone interested in helping with this? Apparently this happened last summer too. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  16:55, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nevermind, I think I got it all for now, but just one more thing to keep an eye out for. -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  02:20, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  129.176.151.x & mayoclinic.org external links 

message: I'd be interested in any thoughts this group has about this conversation reguarding wilsoncenter.org spam that I cleaned up recently. To me it appears that  is just nitpicking, but I could be wrong. Does anyone else agree with his/her position, and if so does the spam1 template need to be revised, or a seperate spam1a message be created? Thanks again! -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  02:36, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That argument is the one most frequently made to me when I revert linkspam and use spam1. I think both positions are correct - saying "but my link isn't commercial!" is nitpicking, but also I have thought for a while that a rewording or separate template is in order. Spammers often look for loopholes to justify their content's existence; if we close this one it would certainly make our tasks easier! Just my $0.02... --AbsolutDan (talk) 04:12, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, those template messages should be rephrased to reflect a wider definition of spam, such as non-commercial promotional links or an excessive number thereof. Femto 13:13, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to be clear I do not in any way classify  as a spammer; he seems to be a conscientious editor, and from the discussion it would appear that I have not done as good a job of communicating with him as I would hope. One of the reasons I edit here at Wikipedia is to work on my writing skills, and it bothers me that I apparently couldn't get my thoughts across to him clearly. Is my last edit better? Critiques would be very welcome at my talk page. Thanks again! -- Argon233 T C @ ∉  19:00, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilsoncenter.org spam cleanup issue with ''spam1'' template 

message: IP user 68.185.174.246 contribs is a "slow spammer", coming by once in a while to add the same links to the same pages. SB_Johnny | talk 15:39, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No one's warned him yet, so I've left  on his talk page. Let's see if he continues to add the link --AbsolutDan (talk) 15:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  please block this IP 

message: Keeping in mind the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#New template needed? disscussion I have created a new Template:NoMoreLinks based on a successful Polish Template:Linkownia . What do you think, should it be included in the Template:Spam-nav?  Mieciu K 14:59, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it. (I think I'd prefer a template name in all-lowercase, but a redirect would be enough for me.) I made some fixes to the Usage section and left a suggestion on the Talk page for improving the template a bit. — Saxifrage ✎ 22:55, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  So what would you prefer  {nomorelinks}, {no more links}, {no-more-links} (as in {cleanup-spam})? Mieciu K 23:19, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's fairly academic since the template-format will never be seen, but  or/and  as redirects to  would make it easier to type and remember the subst. If this is adopted I'll likely add those as redirects just for convenience later. — Saxifrage ✎ 06:29, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since after 3 days I don't see any negative opinions, I have been bold and added Template:NoMoreLinks to the Template:Spam-nav. Mieciu K 18:19, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Template:NoMoreLinks created 

message: See contribs for IP user: . All are to the same site, he/she has been warned but did not reply. SB_Johnny | talk 17:26, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've given another message. Report to WP:AIV for a block if it continues only after more serious warnings (i.e. subst:Spam4). Femto 18:09, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Block please