![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have encountered a problem where someone from an IP [1] is continually adding promotional language and POV statements [2] to an article making about a product ( Questar telescopes) in what seems to be an atempt to turn the article into an "Advertisements masquerading as article" (and what do you know!!! They keep adding a link to a commercial distributor!!! [3]). The guidelines on SPAM seem to cover just linkspamming and not this overall article skewing. Should I just ignore these edits for a wile and then delete all their stuff or should I bring them up for a block of their IP as a spammer? Halfblue 21:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, can you guys help me with this one.... I need some clarification on an external link. Should the link to the official Holmfirth Folk Festival site that I added in the arts section of the wikipedia:Holmfirth page have been inserted in the external links section of the page instead? The link was deleted as "business advertising spam" by 82.30.78.230, but I don't see the difference between this and the link to the websites of artists Ashley Jackson or Trevor Stubley that are also in the arts section. I was following the example set there by adding the festival link (possibly wrongly - hence this talk post).
The festival is a community event not a business (although it is supported by the Holme Valley Business Association), the website is relevant and on-topic (being about an annual event in Holmfirth and also being the official site), and contains informative detail (like dates and venues). It does contain links to accommodation, but these are for visitor info, rather than advertising. Having read Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Spam, the link seems to fulfill requirements. Obviously the site is an advertisement in itself (in terms of raising awareness for the festival), but then so are the abovementioned artist websites, and others on Wikipedia such as the Glastonbury official website.
Any advice/ideas? Tyke abroad 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I'd just like to add a voice suggesting that the term WP:SPAM is often overused in discussions and talk pages. I keep seeing this guideline invoked to say why a certain external link shouldn't be included. Usually the removal of the link is correct, but Wikipedia:External Links is the more appropriate guideline for two reasons: (1) most of the time the links do not refer to the types of things we consider Spam in our inboxes (e.g., a link to a manufacturer of clarinet reeds on a clarinet reed page should probably be removed, but is not at all the type of thing my email spam filter is worried about) and (2) invoking this rule is a cross-purposes with Assuming Good Faith and civility unless you are absolutely sure that the editor didn't think that the link was improving the article--calling someone a spammer is not a light accusation and should only be used as a last resort (probably after you've already insulted their mothers :). Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Spam" has a number of different meanings online. The original meaning (from MUDs, and then Usenet) was more or less "the same message sent many times over." Posting the same link to several articles, or adding lots of links to the same site as "references", is "spamming" in this sense.
A later meaning of "spam" is "unsolicited, bulk messages". This is just like the above, except with the qualification that it's possible for bulk messages to be solicited, which excludes them from being spam. But Wikipedia doesn't solicit multiply-posted links, so this distinction doesn't make a difference.
Yet another meaning is "unwanted advertising". This should be pretty obvious -- Wikipedia is not for advertising.
A latter-day and rather informal meaning of "spam" is "lots of junk I don't like, cluttering up a resource I like." In this sense, people may describe links they perceive as excessive as being "spam", even if they were not the result of a deliberate act of repeated posting.
Know what you mean by "spam"! The greatest commonality among different definitiona is that when something is unwanted, unsolicited, repetitious, valueless, (and usually promotional), it's spam. -- FOo 04:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Myke Cuthbert that the term "spam" is overused. Too often, it's used against well-meaning editors, perhaps novices, who don't understand what constitutes an appropriate link. For instance, they may add links similar to inappropriate ones that already exist in the article. So of course they get defensive when accused of spamming. This is how things escalate.
I think "violates WP:EL" would be a better approach unless the editor is adding the same link to multiple articles, and the link is clearly promotional rather than informational. To my mind, the term "spam" seems to suggest that the reverting editor presumes knowledge of what the posting editor's intentions were. Before doing that, reverting editors ought to make sure they have sufficient evidence to support that presumption. ThreeOfCups ( talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a new breed of spam evolving, that is the "box-it" method to make a link more prominent (possibly a violation of WP:NPOV). See for example this TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 26#Template:FreeContentMeta. Matthew 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the articles contributed by user Lhinternational ( Special:Contributions/Lhinternational) are all spam and look like a COI. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday I created my first Wikipedia page for the company I work for. It was quickly deleted. Can someone help me understand how to not be deleted for spam? I've a ton of stuff on Wikipedia, but I just didn't seem to get it right. I even copied the basic format of the page from another company that creates software in the same space as ours. The page was Infusion_Software. I used the Salesforce.com page as a basic template, plugged in our company info, and it was a no go. Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgarns ( talk • contribs)
What level of spam is appropriate for getting domains added to the spam blacklist? I noticed additions of links to www.teomandogan.com from several IP addresses, e.g. Special:Contributions/85.101.243.47. Looking at the affected articles, there seem to be other domains being linked by the same folks (like www.burunestetik.com.tr, www.estetikcerrahi.biz, and www.psclinic.biz - see Special:Contributions/212.156.177.180). I can only presume these folks think they're increasing their Google rating or something. This is mostly just a pain to undo - if we add the domains to the blacklist I assume they'll get the message that adding these links is not OK. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I've tried removing the spam EL section on Japa mala, removing sites that sell various religious products or push religious groups, but another editor thinks my deletions were "too harsh" and has restored all of them. Can I get some of you to look at the article and assist with spam removal? Buddhipriya 09:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
A new user is persistent in spamming her software project YATE on WP. (The YATE article has been removed multiple times and is now under a DRV). User has been warned and links removed from many articles under an IP user id 83.166.206.79. She now has created a user id User:Diana cionoiu. She has openly acknowledged that her job is to promote YATE and she has requested help on the YATE project talk page for others to assist her in promoting YATE on WP. Most of the EL's she's added have already been removed but on Inter-Asterisk eXchange, she has solicited another WP user User:Apankrat to assist her and we are currently at the 3RR level. The article lists groups and organizations that are related to the topic, none of which have ELs. These two insist upon listing YATE with an EL. This lady is persistent and now has requested this WP user to add links to her project on other articles as well User talk:Apankrat. Any assistance here would be appreciated. Calltech 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam where it belongs. This was my error because this discussion page is about the standard, not individual cases. Calltech 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the suggestion to combine articles about competing products under a common topic. Things should not have their own articles unless they are notable. -- 216.49.181.128 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I was banned because of a lot of links to my works which are located on my site apocalyptism.ru.
My error was: I repeated the same links (English) in these articles on others languages.
I apologize and shall not to do it more.
All my links were strictly on the subject, and experts can confirm that my works are professional and contain the useful information for readers of Wiki.
I ask English Community of Wiki to pardon me and to cancel my banning.
Lregelson
There seems to be a little bit of a tension between the need on the one hand to avoid giving uncited information, which is original research, and on the other hand to avoid seeming like you're spamming by including links. How do you avoid running afoul of this? Case in point was this version of conversation opener. See [5]. How could the source have been cited without seeming like it was spam? Or was that an inappropriate source? I just remember that in academic papers, we always used to say, "According to ..." the first time a source was referenced, rather than just putting a footnote. Captain Zyrain 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Conversation_opener&oldid=156395614
Just a question really, a new user has made his first edit in the Beith article and is nothing more than self promotion for his own books, none of which are seemingly used in the creation of the article. Would this constitute as spam? -- Dreamer84 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding Wiki-links to one article on to many other articles seems to be another method of promotional spam and it seems there should be some sort of statement warning against such abuse. For example, in wandering around pages I was editing, I keep seeing the same things being listed under "See also" sections and/or superfluously embedded in articles ("such as ..."). Some entries were in more than a dozen additional articlea and seem designed to promote the main article, which in some cases is agenda-driven. I would refer to this as "wiki-link spam." Is there a rule or guideline against such a practice? The wiki-links I found to be most excessive spammed were Paleolithic diet, Low-carbohydrate diet and the Weston A. Price Foundation, but there were and still are several others that have some relationship to the WAPF or its agendas (milk issues, saturated fats, coconut oil, etc.). Numerous examplea of the wikilink spam can been seen by reviewing my edits in the last three days. It seems a group of people is using wikipedia to push an agenda through articles and article linking. Any thoughts? OccamzRazor 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Spam or not? Two edits by User:Nugget680 ( Talk | contribs)
Both seem potentially helpful, but the sites don't seem to be known sources, have the same template with Google text ads, etc. -- Hebisddave ( talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:PDS consists entirely of one long post which is obvious spam. Although this would be deleted if it had been put into the text of an article, I'm unsure what the policy is when spam is posted on a talk page, since in my experience content is never deleted from talk pages. Should this be deleted? Thanks. 152.130.6.130 ( talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Spam or not? Links to a py to download site by User:SoonerDub ( Talk | contribs)
This user likes to link under http://www.dynamiclink.nl/ . This site appears top offers nothing but pay-to-download windows libraries -DLLs, INF files, etc. If they weren't pay-to-download, and there was some informative content alongside it, then the links could maybe be justified.
Some recent changes
My question is, does the remote site and its content violate linking policy? Here are the destination URLs:
If they are felt to be legit, then I will leave the links alone. If not, then they should be dealt with by the 'bots. SteveLoughran ( talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a short section we could refer to as WP:PLUG for cases of abuse that don't rise to the level of blatant advertising or spam but are unnecessary or unjustified in the context of the article, or that simply repeat names or internal links already included in the article. I don't think there's a need for a new set of templates, but in the case of reverting edits like this, it would be nice to add an official-sounding phrase like "see WP:PLUG" to the edit summary. -- CliffC ( talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On the page Special: book sources, the link Learn how to bypass this page and go to the same book source every time, listed prominently in the article, goes to amazon.com as the default. I think it is totally wrong to give a reference to amazon as the default, Wikipedia credit or no--that is concealed spam, tho probably done innocently, for a commercial bookstore. The isbn page was designed to prevent this by getting people not to use amazon as a matter of course in doing references to books. A suitable neutral non-profit source should be used as the default, and the best is probably WorldCat. The script is at [6]. I have eft a note on the talk page there. DGG ( talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In order for my script to be understandable, some url must be specified, even if the user ultimately will choose a different book source. The question then becomes what url?
When I first wrote the script, I chose Amazon, because that is the site that I found most useful. Of the roughly 700 people who are using this script on the English Wikipedia, about 60% agree with me that Amazon is the site they want ISBNs to redirect to. About 40% have followed my detailed instructions, and changed the destination url. Because of these numbers, I am not inclined to change the default url.
However, I would be happy to include a short disclaimer that inclusion of the Amazon url is not a endorsement by Wikipedia, and that the script is the work of an individual. Perhaps you have some language to that effect?
Lunchboxhero ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Many edits by User:Dogsrock12 ( Talk | contribs) sound like a 12-year-old ("EE Cummings is funny"), or are inappropriate links. Some edits have been undone and the user has been warned (according to the user page). I'm new to Wikipedia and fear retaliation if I undo or mark them as spam. Can someone undo the edits by User:Dogsrock12? On Wikipedia:Help desk I noticed a reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts explaining that I can create a second account that I can use, for example, to handle spam that I find. [[[User:Daven brown|Daven brown]] ( talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
At http://www.mediabistro.com/courses/cache/crs2995.asp "It's only a matter of time before you or your business finds its way onto Wikipedia's pages." Price seems reasonable at $15 each, so I guess we should expect a fresh influx of spammers. Should someone sign up for these just to understand what they recommend?
FWIW, not really related, but Wikipedia now has 326 links to mediabstro.com
--
CliffC (
talk)
21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right venue for this, but anon IPs keep adding http://orcasisland.mobi OrcasIsland.mobi to the Orcas Island article. It looks like spam to me, and other users have removed it as well. But I'm not super familiar with what exactly is gonna constitute linkspam, and how to get a link auto-banned from insertion if it becomes a problem. Murderbike ( talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is something that is not completely clear to me (and maybe to others). How does WP:SPAM cover the mass addition of a sentence with an internal link. I mean examples like:
I would consider them spam (the latter two rather innocent), but find it at this part difficult to explain how WP:SPAM covers this type of spam. Could someone please expand on this? Thanks! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ilovetechno.be is spamming numerous music articles (over a dozen so far), switching the image to a new one that includes an "I (heart) Techno" logo. I didn't check every one, but none appear to be an improved image, just different. Not sure what the procedure is here. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski to see what the prescribed format was for a resort now that the article I was interested in has slid further into spam/pr. They did not seem to have a format. Worse, one article they pointed to and seemed to be proud of, Okemo Mountain, was nearly as bad as the one I was hoping to get guidelines on. I don't know what can be done to control this sort of thing. Seems quite our of hand when you have an entire Wikiproject established to do Wikitravel it would seem. I would appreciate ideas. Student7 ( talk) 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at Jonathan Sacks I have been trying to prevent User:homeofhope from advertising a CD Home of Hope to which Sacks has given his backing. I have now used up my 3 reverts. Is there a clear statement that fighting SPAM does not count towards my 3 reverts if said user strikes again?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If a game is not copyrighted, and an implementation of that game exists, and the site has no advertising, no special plug-ins, no log-in required, is it acceptable to link to such a site, assuming no other violations of WP:EL exist. There is a fairly heated debate over at talk:Spider (solitaire) that needs more input. If it is determined that this is spam, the policies on this and the WP:EL pages need to be updated. But, I think we need a clear consensus, as there are opinions on both sides. Bytebear ( talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ariesubg ( talk · contribs) works for a music website UrbanBridgez.com (UBG for short)— admittedly—and added a link to the site as a reference (I have brought up its dubious nature at the RS noticeboard) and is using his/her user page to promote the website. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the local spam blacklist page ( MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) be mentioned somewhere in this guideline. I was looking for a way to report a spamlink that one user keeps adding, but the guideline only mentions the Meta blacklist, which (as I found out) is only used against multi-project spammers. I'm not sure where in the guideline it would be most appropriate to mention the blacklist, so I'd like to ask someone else to do it.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask about this diff – is it a spam or not? Both name and website should be removed from image caption at the article page since they are not notable, but the author of photo claims that then it will violate copyrights included in his image. A very sneaky way to self-promotion of his name and blogspam. What do you think? Are there any rules or guidelines on this case? Visor ( talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
|attr=John Doe
", or maybe some meta tag that should be added to the image page itself and would be parsed along the image, that would cause the author name to be shown over the image itself, in some non-intrusive way, on mouse-over, when JavaScript is enabled, or below the caption, in a small font (let's say, size 5), when JavaScript is disabled. In either case, if this were to be implemented I'd suggest not allowing links there, only plain text. This way, to obtain more information about the image than just its attribution, the user would still have to click the image to see its page. This would prevent the use of such clauses as a spam source, while reasonably fulfilling the request of those requiring a more "in your face" attribution than the one already provided by the image page, as the way to show it would still be ultimately determined by the WikiMedia software and by the skin the user selected/developed, not by the image author. --
alexgieg (
talk)
12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Can we add something to this that says:
Ideas, comments, opinions? ~ WikiDon ( talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPAM and WP:COI would appear to be deeply flawed policies if they can be cited cogently to justify the warnings recently directed against James Franklin. Squaring the circle is on my watchlist and I came across this edit. In the edit summary, user:Hu12 called this edit "spam". That didn't make sense at all. It was a link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic that the article was about! That's a valuable contribution. I restored the link.
Then I looked at Hu12's edits. He was systematically deleting external links to lectures at Gresham College. The edits were put there by James Franklin, who is employed by Gresham College. Apparently this raised two concerns: (1) that the purpose of the links was only to promote Gresham College's web site, and (2) that there was a conflict of interests of the sort treated at WP:COI. Understandable concerns, but there's a difference between valid grounds to suspect a problem, and valid grounds to conclude finally that there is. The latter requires more information than the former. One must look at, among other things, the nature and purpose of the links. They are a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. A neutral person with no such conflict could reasonably add them. Hu12 actually blocked the user, James Franklin. Maybe a dozen or so people stepped in and started saying the links are good and the user should not be blocked. I might have been the fourth or fifth one, and I unblocked the user and at the suggestion of one of the others I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents about it. Two views emerged: (1) That I was making far too much of the matter and I should apologize to Hu12; and (2) That Hu12 was vastly overreacting and should apologize for blocking the user.
Now the thing that really surprised me is that AFTER all this, user:BozMo, who was aware of all of this discussion, still posted a warning on James Franklin's user page telling him not to post links to lectures at Gresham College.
I think that is wrong. But he cited WP:SPAM and WP:COI in support of his position. If those policies can really justify his position, then those policies need to change. If someone who works for Encyclopædia Britannica starts posting large numbers of links to on-topic articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, it may be reasonable to suspect something amiss, but for that to be the bottom-line conclusion even AFTER the nature of the links is examined is wrong. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to worship rules and regulations. I'm going to post these comments at the COI talk page as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think there is such a conflict of interests? The affiliation of the person with the organization is reason to INITIALLY SUSPECT such a thing. But now, AFTER you know the nature of the person's affiliation and his specific activities, do you STILL think there's a conflict of interests that prevents him from objectively judging THESE links? If so, WHY? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
...and if the links are appropriate when looked at individually, and you HAVE looked at them individually, would you still delete them? If so, I will argue that that is absurd. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
None of these links was appropriate. We get this all the time: an eager advocate of a magazine, company, organization, or whatever, starts going through Wikipedia "helpfully" adding links to something their boss/employer/alma mater/organization has put out. Part of the reason for the COI policy is the knowledge that nobody can be the best judge when they have a horse in the race. Such links are invariably violations of
our guidelines on external links. Anybody who persists in linkspamming is going to get banned; that's as it should be. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Caomhin wrote:
But I think it should have been on the content, to the extent possible, and Hu12 should have assumed good faith. Caomhin further wrote:
But Hu12 did not suggest that to JF. Hu12 blocked JF and accused him of bad-faith editing. Why must this policy be cited as justifying such a complete refusal to use any common sense?
I think JF in his editing has done little other than add these links characterized as "spam", and I'm going to award him a barnstar for it. He is certainly entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his addition of so much of this "spam". Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone wrote above "The spam call was on the action, not the content."
In this case the "spam call" consisted not of cautioning the user against creating an appearance of conflict, but of actually blocking the user in disregard of the content of the links.
I propose that such judgments based on "actions" disregarding content should be considered only grounds for suspicion, and one should be permitted to issue such a "spam call" ONLY after the content has been looked at, remembering that one must assume good faith.
The reason for this is to avoid situations like the one with user:jamesfranklingresham, who is certainly entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his mass addition of external links to his employer.
I'm surprised that some of the people above view it differently. They have forgotten that this is Wikipedia, where contributions from unqualified people are welcomed and judged on their content, not on the qualifications of the contributor. They propose to revert the excellent contributions of James Franklin on the grounds that he is seen as unqualified, where the exact same contributions from a qualified editor would have been welcomed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A position was wrongly attributed to me:
I never thought appropriate content could or should excuse inappropriate behavior. What makes you think I ever thought or said anything like that? Adding appropriate context is NOT inappropriate behavior. There was no inappropriate behavior. There were only some grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior. The suspicion should have vanished when the content, and therefore the behavior, was found to be appropriate.
Don't misrepresent my position. I did not say appropriate content could excuse clearly inappropriate behavior. Do not attribute that position to me. Do not put words in my mouth. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Mass posting of links to one's employer's web site
= grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior.
But only grounds to suspect. It's not inappropriate behavior if the CONTENT is then found appropriate.
That is the proposed policy. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And what I'm saying is that it is NOT INAPPROPRIATE behavior if the content is appropriate. It may be grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior and therefore to investigate, but it's not conclusive.
Look: we have a guy who made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, for which we should be grateful, who got rebuked and blocked as if he were a vandal. Shouldn't that embarrass some people? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
But you can't know that it's "canvassing" until you look at the content. And who ignored warnings? There wasn't a warning; there was only a block. I've given the user a barnstar for the contributions for which he got blocked. He deserved it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"Prima facie" evidence creates a rebutable presumption, but it doesn't terminate the matter until the opportunity to rebut has been used. And that means: look at the content. If the content is then found appropriate, then the the presumption should be considered successfully rebuted. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Satori Son wrote:
It is hard to exaggerate how irrational these comments are. Quite aside from the nonsensical idea that I "chose" a case to support a proposal (I did not; the proposal arose from the important case), the fact is any case to which the proposal would be relevant would be one for which those questions would have to be asked. If the case did not involve those questions, it would have no relevance to the proposal. The fact is, a poorly chosen case, in the relevant sense, would be one for which the CONTENT WAS BAD. This is in fact an excellent csae for this proposal BECAUSE THE CONTENT WAS GOOD. If it had been a poorly chosen case in the relevant sense, I'd have to ask "What if the content had been good?". But I don't.
This is the perfectly chosen case, if anyone had been looking for one, precisely because the content was good and no one could reasonably object to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, enough. I have yet another post, reiterating (again) the same thing, from Michael Hardy on my talk page, and I personally am fed up. I am reminding users, and especially Michael Hardy of the following from WP:CIV, an official policy of Wikipedia. These must be avoided:
Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen").
In my personal opinion, Michael Hardy is in violation of this policy in referring to two users' contributions as "talking nonsense" and referring to one's as "irrational comments." Cut it out NOW, please, or I will have no choice than to bring this to the attention of WP:WQA. There are strong feelings here, but this is not how to express them. I will leave a copy of this on Michael Hardy's talk page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like some help evaluating the contributions of User:Scooterhead73, all of which involve Cheetah Motorsports and it's products. The stuff is well written but appears to be clearly promotional in intent. I gave him a warning and reverted his changes to All-terrain vehicle but I'm not clear whether his additions to Scooter (motorcycle) shouldn't be reverted as well. Any takers? TIA -- Mwanner | Talk 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Over the last day or so, links to skimap.org (which apparently "launched" four days ago) have been added to about fifty different ski mountain articles by Crystalmountainskier. The website is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure it'd be critical for the readers of most of these articles, given that we already link to the official websites for the mountains (which almost always have the current official trail map available). I'm also concerned about the potential copyvio issue for the website itself (something they acknowledge on their website: "If you are a ski area and want your maps removed..."). And then there's WP:ADS and WP:NOT#LINKS. I've not asked the editor to remove the links, and I've not removed them myself. My general instinct is that, when it comes to "interesting" links, I think Google and DMOZ are better outlets... I mentioned this on the user's talk page ( here), and he responded quickly, calmly, and in good faith, but I'm still concerned the links are problematic. I'll put a link to this discussion on his talk page. Any thoughts would be helpful. user:j (aka justen) 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly support Crystalmountainskier, it was launched just 4 days ago (see Google cache of Skimap.org). While maybe there shouldn't be links on every page, there certainly should be a link somewhere on Wikipedia since it has been recognized as a very useful resource on multiple ski forums (epicski.com for one) over the last few days. Old ski maps are very hard to find, but tell a lot about the history of a ski area. The website certainly deserves some recognition on Wikipedia, as skiers really appreciate the resource. Non-skiers may not be interested, but then why should they be looking at these ski resort pages? The links certainly have significant relevance to skiers. user:WBSKI 16:57, 4 August 2008 (PST)
Been fighting this commercial sale site for weeks. Really ramping up last few days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.187.17.183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Loognut I think I remember some others that I could probably dig up if needed. Help please? Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
My latest masterpiece, Wikipedia:Spam paranoia. EVCM ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this - wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the policy "Wikipedia:Advertising"? That seems to be a more fitting term for the policy, since it seems to better encompass the scope of the policy, since I'm sure many consider spam to have a far narrower connotation than used here. When I think of "spam", I think of those advertisements promising sex, prescription drugs, and larger body parts, while much of what we call spam I would just call unwelcome advertising.
Also worth considering: Currently, Wikipedia:Advertising resolves to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This policy seems a better item to place on that title. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I had thought it was not ok to link to an external cite that charged money to view it. I referred them to this section however I am being told that I am misunderstanding what "free" means. If someone wants to pay to find a reference or citation for use in a Wikipedia article they may. Then an editor can link to the pay to view site because it is "freely available" as a verifiable reference. The site in question is News Bank and I am not asking if it is a good source or not, I am asking if sending people there knowing they will have to pay to view full articles is allowed. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
We have noticeboards like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard; should we also have a "spam noticeboard"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I run a website wihch interviews people. I put a link on one of the pepole who I had interviewed page and it was called spam by a user and removed. I did not mean to spam the page. I just thought that anyone looking at the page may want to read a interview with them. It was at the bottom of the page. I would like to add my interviews in future and add any useful info I pick up on them to the pages but I don't want to seem like a spammer. What would be the best way to do this? Do you want to see the page/website or is it best left unsaid? I don't want to seem like I am promoting the site on here. Thanks a lot to whoever is reading this.-- Lotsofinterviews ( talk) 22:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This site has been discussed before here and here. It now appears that another anonymous user is on a mission to add this link under the guise of "tidying". It seems this user waits until the last octet of his IP changes with his ISP to add another link. See here and here. Also notice the last entry in this section that the link is also slipped in. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 16:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Umm... if we take this very literally, this would mean that we couldn't even have an external link to walmart.com at Wal-Mart. That's silly, don't you think? - furrykef ( Talk at me) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Examples in articles tend to attract spam. A sentence such as, "For example, Chevron Corporation has ..." will attract editors to add more examples unlinked, internally linked, or externally linked, sometimes growing into lists. I've seen other editors refer to such examples as "spam magnets." In general, I think such example sentences should be removed unless referenced with a source independent of the examples where the examples are highly relevant to the article topic. From what I've seen of others doing the same thing, I think there's a great deal of consensus for this.
Also, can anyone think of a better article than WP:SPAM for including such guidelines? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've probably asked this in the past. What is the picture of a padlock next to links for? Is this documented anywhere? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a solely a Microsoft advertisment. 140.247.196.77 ( talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikia is commercial, so any links pointing to it should be removed, no? Notowikia ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference of opinion as to whether Wilf_Lunn should have a link to the Wilf Lunn Website which it has been suggested should be classified as spam. comments? Thozza ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is adding links to sell photographs, but the photographs seem relevant to the articles. My reading of WP:SPAM didn't give a clear cut answer - could someone check whether this is spam or not? Thanks. pgr94 ( talk) 09:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Acsociety appears to be spamming links to his own (as claimed on user page) social networking and forum site, LAShTAL.com. Since the site claims to be the work of the "Aleister Crowley Society", the account would also appear to be a role account. Will in China ( talk) 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The current advertisement article Mojave Experiment is a prime example of how well ads can be done on wikipedia. So ads should formally be allowed by other companies.
Hello everyone, my user name is MSPaintNerd and I'm pretty new to editing in Wikipedia. I'll start out by saying I am the owner of the account on Youtube (MSPaintNerd) that shows the public domain movies in question. I tried to add an external link (Youtube) to some public domain videos (like Humorous Phases of Funny Faces from 1906--unquestionably in public domain) that I have in my possesion but the page was reverted back by the "XLinkBot" and left a message that basically claimed I was a malicious spammer. That was not my intent, and while I don't deny I wanted to garner some extra views for my account, I also wanted to post a relevant link to a public domain film that didn't already have have a video link to it. I've compiled a small list public domain movies I have that don't have any video links yet: Revolt of the Zombies, Hercules and the Tyrants of Babylon, Brideless Groom, The Man with the Golden Arm, Bear Shooters, Three Came Home, Daydreams, Rain, The Screaming Skull, They Made Me a Criminal, Hercules vs. the Moon Men, The Inspector General, Topper, and Track of the Moon Beast. My dilemma is whether the fact that I own the account that shows the videos constitues a conflict of interests or not. Would someone with the knowledge of such things either tell me 1) this is a conflict of interest and don't post the links or 2) you can post the links as long as you promise to not abuse it (and tell me how to override the "bot"). If I am granted permission to post the links you have my word that I will 1) only post links to public domain movies (which I have researched) and 2) will only post links that do not already have a video link (like google video or another Youtube). I would appreciate an answer from an administrator or someone with some authority. Thanks alot!!☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ P.S. If external links are considered spam how come so many already exist on Wikipedia, including video links? Thanks again!
Thank you for the response! Are you basically giving me permission to post such links as long as they are acceptable with the guidelines (and no other links exist yet)? If so thanks a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSPaintnerd ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input guys! Of course the golden rule is to never violate the copyright (and I usually check several sites before I'm sastified its PD--including the almost always trustworthy Wikipedia). If several of you think this is a major COI then I will refrain from posting further links. Just thought I could get a win/win here with contributing to Wikipedia and also getting a bit of their traffic. Peace guys ☺ ☻ MSPaintnerd ( talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So are you guys saying that an external link to archive.org is cool? If so I'll just give a link to there and give up my other quest (it was worth a shot though right?) I would also like to note that on Humorous Phases of Funny Faces, the library of Congress link made you download the media to view where as it was just streamed from mine. Anyway, keep up the fight making Wikipedia awesome (and it is Awesome) ☺ ☻ MSPaintnerd ( talk) 23:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
I have encountered a problem where someone from an IP [1] is continually adding promotional language and POV statements [2] to an article making about a product ( Questar telescopes) in what seems to be an atempt to turn the article into an "Advertisements masquerading as article" (and what do you know!!! They keep adding a link to a commercial distributor!!! [3]). The guidelines on SPAM seem to cover just linkspamming and not this overall article skewing. Should I just ignore these edits for a wile and then delete all their stuff or should I bring them up for a block of their IP as a spammer? Halfblue 21:55, 11 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, can you guys help me with this one.... I need some clarification on an external link. Should the link to the official Holmfirth Folk Festival site that I added in the arts section of the wikipedia:Holmfirth page have been inserted in the external links section of the page instead? The link was deleted as "business advertising spam" by 82.30.78.230, but I don't see the difference between this and the link to the websites of artists Ashley Jackson or Trevor Stubley that are also in the arts section. I was following the example set there by adding the festival link (possibly wrongly - hence this talk post).
The festival is a community event not a business (although it is supported by the Holme Valley Business Association), the website is relevant and on-topic (being about an annual event in Holmfirth and also being the official site), and contains informative detail (like dates and venues). It does contain links to accommodation, but these are for visitor info, rather than advertising. Having read Wikipedia:External_links and Wikipedia:Spam, the link seems to fulfill requirements. Obviously the site is an advertisement in itself (in terms of raising awareness for the festival), but then so are the abovementioned artist websites, and others on Wikipedia such as the Glastonbury official website.
Any advice/ideas? Tyke abroad 04:45, 26 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi -- I'd just like to add a voice suggesting that the term WP:SPAM is often overused in discussions and talk pages. I keep seeing this guideline invoked to say why a certain external link shouldn't be included. Usually the removal of the link is correct, but Wikipedia:External Links is the more appropriate guideline for two reasons: (1) most of the time the links do not refer to the types of things we consider Spam in our inboxes (e.g., a link to a manufacturer of clarinet reeds on a clarinet reed page should probably be removed, but is not at all the type of thing my email spam filter is worried about) and (2) invoking this rule is a cross-purposes with Assuming Good Faith and civility unless you are absolutely sure that the editor didn't think that the link was improving the article--calling someone a spammer is not a light accusation and should only be used as a last resort (probably after you've already insulted their mothers :). Best, -- Myke Cuthbert (talk) 22:17, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
"Spam" has a number of different meanings online. The original meaning (from MUDs, and then Usenet) was more or less "the same message sent many times over." Posting the same link to several articles, or adding lots of links to the same site as "references", is "spamming" in this sense.
A later meaning of "spam" is "unsolicited, bulk messages". This is just like the above, except with the qualification that it's possible for bulk messages to be solicited, which excludes them from being spam. But Wikipedia doesn't solicit multiply-posted links, so this distinction doesn't make a difference.
Yet another meaning is "unwanted advertising". This should be pretty obvious -- Wikipedia is not for advertising.
A latter-day and rather informal meaning of "spam" is "lots of junk I don't like, cluttering up a resource I like." In this sense, people may describe links they perceive as excessive as being "spam", even if they were not the result of a deliberate act of repeated posting.
Know what you mean by "spam"! The greatest commonality among different definitiona is that when something is unwanted, unsolicited, repetitious, valueless, (and usually promotional), it's spam. -- FOo 04:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree with Myke Cuthbert that the term "spam" is overused. Too often, it's used against well-meaning editors, perhaps novices, who don't understand what constitutes an appropriate link. For instance, they may add links similar to inappropriate ones that already exist in the article. So of course they get defensive when accused of spamming. This is how things escalate.
I think "violates WP:EL" would be a better approach unless the editor is adding the same link to multiple articles, and the link is clearly promotional rather than informational. To my mind, the term "spam" seems to suggest that the reverting editor presumes knowledge of what the posting editor's intentions were. Before doing that, reverting editors ought to make sure they have sufficient evidence to support that presumption. ThreeOfCups ( talk) 01:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
There's a new breed of spam evolving, that is the "box-it" method to make a link more prominent (possibly a violation of WP:NPOV). See for example this TfD: Wikipedia:Templates for deletion/Log/2007 May 26#Template:FreeContentMeta. Matthew 09:48, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe the articles contributed by user Lhinternational ( Special:Contributions/Lhinternational) are all spam and look like a COI. → AA ( talk • contribs) — 09:57, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
Yesterday I created my first Wikipedia page for the company I work for. It was quickly deleted. Can someone help me understand how to not be deleted for spam? I've a ton of stuff on Wikipedia, but I just didn't seem to get it right. I even copied the basic format of the page from another company that creates software in the same space as ours. The page was Infusion_Software. I used the Salesforce.com page as a basic template, plugged in our company info, and it was a no go. Any advice? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgarns ( talk • contribs)
What level of spam is appropriate for getting domains added to the spam blacklist? I noticed additions of links to www.teomandogan.com from several IP addresses, e.g. Special:Contributions/85.101.243.47. Looking at the affected articles, there seem to be other domains being linked by the same folks (like www.burunestetik.com.tr, www.estetikcerrahi.biz, and www.psclinic.biz - see Special:Contributions/212.156.177.180). I can only presume these folks think they're increasing their Google rating or something. This is mostly just a pain to undo - if we add the domains to the blacklist I assume they'll get the message that adding these links is not OK. -- Rick Block ( talk) 01:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
I've tried removing the spam EL section on Japa mala, removing sites that sell various religious products or push religious groups, but another editor thinks my deletions were "too harsh" and has restored all of them. Can I get some of you to look at the article and assist with spam removal? Buddhipriya 09:46, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
A new user is persistent in spamming her software project YATE on WP. (The YATE article has been removed multiple times and is now under a DRV). User has been warned and links removed from many articles under an IP user id 83.166.206.79. She now has created a user id User:Diana cionoiu. She has openly acknowledged that her job is to promote YATE and she has requested help on the YATE project talk page for others to assist her in promoting YATE on WP. Most of the EL's she's added have already been removed but on Inter-Asterisk eXchange, she has solicited another WP user User:Apankrat to assist her and we are currently at the 3RR level. The article lists groups and organizations that are related to the topic, none of which have ELs. These two insist upon listing YATE with an EL. This lady is persistent and now has requested this WP user to add links to her project on other articles as well User talk:Apankrat. Any assistance here would be appreciated. Calltech 03:13, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I have moved this discussion to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam where it belongs. This was my error because this discussion page is about the standard, not individual cases. Calltech 13:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I added the suggestion to combine articles about competing products under a common topic. Things should not have their own articles unless they are notable. -- 216.49.181.128 22:25, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
I was banned because of a lot of links to my works which are located on my site apocalyptism.ru.
My error was: I repeated the same links (English) in these articles on others languages.
I apologize and shall not to do it more.
All my links were strictly on the subject, and experts can confirm that my works are professional and contain the useful information for readers of Wiki.
I ask English Community of Wiki to pardon me and to cancel my banning.
Lregelson
There seems to be a little bit of a tension between the need on the one hand to avoid giving uncited information, which is original research, and on the other hand to avoid seeming like you're spamming by including links. How do you avoid running afoul of this? Case in point was this version of conversation opener. See [5]. How could the source have been cited without seeming like it was spam? Or was that an inappropriate source? I just remember that in academic papers, we always used to say, "According to ..." the first time a source was referenced, rather than just putting a footnote. Captain Zyrain 19:40, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Conversation_opener&oldid=156395614
Just a question really, a new user has made his first edit in the Beith article and is nothing more than self promotion for his own books, none of which are seemingly used in the creation of the article. Would this constitute as spam? -- Dreamer84 15:08, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
Adding Wiki-links to one article on to many other articles seems to be another method of promotional spam and it seems there should be some sort of statement warning against such abuse. For example, in wandering around pages I was editing, I keep seeing the same things being listed under "See also" sections and/or superfluously embedded in articles ("such as ..."). Some entries were in more than a dozen additional articlea and seem designed to promote the main article, which in some cases is agenda-driven. I would refer to this as "wiki-link spam." Is there a rule or guideline against such a practice? The wiki-links I found to be most excessive spammed were Paleolithic diet, Low-carbohydrate diet and the Weston A. Price Foundation, but there were and still are several others that have some relationship to the WAPF or its agendas (milk issues, saturated fats, coconut oil, etc.). Numerous examplea of the wikilink spam can been seen by reviewing my edits in the last three days. It seems a group of people is using wikipedia to push an agenda through articles and article linking. Any thoughts? OccamzRazor 23:55, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Spam or not? Two edits by User:Nugget680 ( Talk | contribs)
Both seem potentially helpful, but the sites don't seem to be known sources, have the same template with Google text ads, etc. -- Hebisddave ( talk) 14:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Talk:PDS consists entirely of one long post which is obvious spam. Although this would be deleted if it had been put into the text of an article, I'm unsure what the policy is when spam is posted on a talk page, since in my experience content is never deleted from talk pages. Should this be deleted? Thanks. 152.130.6.130 ( talk) 15:05, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
Spam or not? Links to a py to download site by User:SoonerDub ( Talk | contribs)
This user likes to link under http://www.dynamiclink.nl/ . This site appears top offers nothing but pay-to-download windows libraries -DLLs, INF files, etc. If they weren't pay-to-download, and there was some informative content alongside it, then the links could maybe be justified.
Some recent changes
My question is, does the remote site and its content violate linking policy? Here are the destination URLs:
If they are felt to be legit, then I will leave the links alone. If not, then they should be dealt with by the 'bots. SteveLoughran ( talk) 17:39, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
It would be nice to have a short section we could refer to as WP:PLUG for cases of abuse that don't rise to the level of blatant advertising or spam but are unnecessary or unjustified in the context of the article, or that simply repeat names or internal links already included in the article. I don't think there's a need for a new set of templates, but in the case of reverting edits like this, it would be nice to add an official-sounding phrase like "see WP:PLUG" to the edit summary. -- CliffC ( talk) 20:49, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
On the page Special: book sources, the link Learn how to bypass this page and go to the same book source every time, listed prominently in the article, goes to amazon.com as the default. I think it is totally wrong to give a reference to amazon as the default, Wikipedia credit or no--that is concealed spam, tho probably done innocently, for a commercial bookstore. The isbn page was designed to prevent this by getting people not to use amazon as a matter of course in doing references to books. A suitable neutral non-profit source should be used as the default, and the best is probably WorldCat. The script is at [6]. I have eft a note on the talk page there. DGG ( talk) 00:45, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
In order for my script to be understandable, some url must be specified, even if the user ultimately will choose a different book source. The question then becomes what url?
When I first wrote the script, I chose Amazon, because that is the site that I found most useful. Of the roughly 700 people who are using this script on the English Wikipedia, about 60% agree with me that Amazon is the site they want ISBNs to redirect to. About 40% have followed my detailed instructions, and changed the destination url. Because of these numbers, I am not inclined to change the default url.
However, I would be happy to include a short disclaimer that inclusion of the Amazon url is not a endorsement by Wikipedia, and that the script is the work of an individual. Perhaps you have some language to that effect?
Lunchboxhero ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 15:25, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Many edits by User:Dogsrock12 ( Talk | contribs) sound like a 12-year-old ("EE Cummings is funny"), or are inappropriate links. Some edits have been undone and the user has been warned (according to the user page). I'm new to Wikipedia and fear retaliation if I undo or mark them as spam. Can someone undo the edits by User:Dogsrock12? On Wikipedia:Help desk I noticed a reference http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Username_policy#Using_multiple_accounts explaining that I can create a second account that I can use, for example, to handle spam that I find. [[[User:Daven brown|Daven brown]] ( talk) 15:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
At http://www.mediabistro.com/courses/cache/crs2995.asp "It's only a matter of time before you or your business finds its way onto Wikipedia's pages." Price seems reasonable at $15 each, so I guess we should expect a fresh influx of spammers. Should someone sign up for these just to understand what they recommend?
FWIW, not really related, but Wikipedia now has 326 links to mediabstro.com
--
CliffC (
talk)
21:22, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:03, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right venue for this, but anon IPs keep adding http://orcasisland.mobi OrcasIsland.mobi to the Orcas Island article. It looks like spam to me, and other users have removed it as well. But I'm not super familiar with what exactly is gonna constitute linkspam, and how to get a link auto-banned from insertion if it becomes a problem. Murderbike ( talk) 21:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
There is something that is not completely clear to me (and maybe to others). How does WP:SPAM cover the mass addition of a sentence with an internal link. I mean examples like:
I would consider them spam (the latter two rather innocent), but find it at this part difficult to explain how WP:SPAM covers this type of spam. Could someone please expand on this? Thanks! -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:31, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
Ilovetechno.be is spamming numerous music articles (over a dozen so far), switching the image to a new one that includes an "I (heart) Techno" logo. I didn't check every one, but none appear to be an improved image, just different. Not sure what the procedure is here. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 15:00, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Just checking Wikipedia:WikiProject Ski to see what the prescribed format was for a resort now that the article I was interested in has slid further into spam/pr. They did not seem to have a format. Worse, one article they pointed to and seemed to be proud of, Okemo Mountain, was nearly as bad as the one I was hoping to get guidelines on. I don't know what can be done to control this sort of thing. Seems quite our of hand when you have an entire Wikiproject established to do Wikitravel it would seem. I would appreciate ideas. Student7 ( talk) 12:12, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Over at Jonathan Sacks I have been trying to prevent User:homeofhope from advertising a CD Home of Hope to which Sacks has given his backing. I have now used up my 3 reverts. Is there a clear statement that fighting SPAM does not count towards my 3 reverts if said user strikes again?-- Peter cohen ( talk) 17:37, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
If a game is not copyrighted, and an implementation of that game exists, and the site has no advertising, no special plug-ins, no log-in required, is it acceptable to link to such a site, assuming no other violations of WP:EL exist. There is a fairly heated debate over at talk:Spider (solitaire) that needs more input. If it is determined that this is spam, the policies on this and the WP:EL pages need to be updated. But, I think we need a clear consensus, as there are opinions on both sides. Bytebear ( talk) 05:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
Ariesubg ( talk · contribs) works for a music website UrbanBridgez.com (UBG for short)— admittedly—and added a link to the site as a reference (I have brought up its dubious nature at the RS noticeboard) and is using his/her user page to promote the website. — Hello, Control Hello, Tony 21:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to suggest that the local spam blacklist page ( MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist) be mentioned somewhere in this guideline. I was looking for a way to report a spamlink that one user keeps adding, but the guideline only mentions the Meta blacklist, which (as I found out) is only used against multi-project spammers. I'm not sure where in the guideline it would be most appropriate to mention the blacklist, so I'd like to ask someone else to do it.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I'd like to ask about this diff – is it a spam or not? Both name and website should be removed from image caption at the article page since they are not notable, but the author of photo claims that then it will violate copyrights included in his image. A very sneaky way to self-promotion of his name and blogspam. What do you think? Are there any rules or guidelines on this case? Visor ( talk) 18:18, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
|attr=John Doe
", or maybe some meta tag that should be added to the image page itself and would be parsed along the image, that would cause the author name to be shown over the image itself, in some non-intrusive way, on mouse-over, when JavaScript is enabled, or below the caption, in a small font (let's say, size 5), when JavaScript is disabled. In either case, if this were to be implemented I'd suggest not allowing links there, only plain text. This way, to obtain more information about the image than just its attribution, the user would still have to click the image to see its page. This would prevent the use of such clauses as a spam source, while reasonably fulfilling the request of those requiring a more "in your face" attribution than the one already provided by the image page, as the way to show it would still be ultimately determined by the WikiMedia software and by the skin the user selected/developed, not by the image author. --
alexgieg (
talk)
12:37, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Can we add something to this that says:
Ideas, comments, opinions? ~ WikiDon ( talk) 15:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
WP:SPAM and WP:COI would appear to be deeply flawed policies if they can be cited cogently to justify the warnings recently directed against James Franklin. Squaring the circle is on my watchlist and I came across this edit. In the edit summary, user:Hu12 called this edit "spam". That didn't make sense at all. It was a link to a lecture by a respected professor on the topic that the article was about! That's a valuable contribution. I restored the link.
Then I looked at Hu12's edits. He was systematically deleting external links to lectures at Gresham College. The edits were put there by James Franklin, who is employed by Gresham College. Apparently this raised two concerns: (1) that the purpose of the links was only to promote Gresham College's web site, and (2) that there was a conflict of interests of the sort treated at WP:COI. Understandable concerns, but there's a difference between valid grounds to suspect a problem, and valid grounds to conclude finally that there is. The latter requires more information than the former. One must look at, among other things, the nature and purpose of the links. They are a valuable contribution to Wikipedia. A neutral person with no such conflict could reasonably add them. Hu12 actually blocked the user, James Franklin. Maybe a dozen or so people stepped in and started saying the links are good and the user should not be blocked. I might have been the fourth or fifth one, and I unblocked the user and at the suggestion of one of the others I posted to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/incidents about it. Two views emerged: (1) That I was making far too much of the matter and I should apologize to Hu12; and (2) That Hu12 was vastly overreacting and should apologize for blocking the user.
Now the thing that really surprised me is that AFTER all this, user:BozMo, who was aware of all of this discussion, still posted a warning on James Franklin's user page telling him not to post links to lectures at Gresham College.
I think that is wrong. But he cited WP:SPAM and WP:COI in support of his position. If those policies can really justify his position, then those policies need to change. If someone who works for Encyclopædia Britannica starts posting large numbers of links to on-topic articles at Encyclopædia Britannica, it may be reasonable to suspect something amiss, but for that to be the bottom-line conclusion even AFTER the nature of the links is examined is wrong. We're here to build an encyclopedia, not to worship rules and regulations. I'm going to post these comments at the COI talk page as well. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:59, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
What makes you think there is such a conflict of interests? The affiliation of the person with the organization is reason to INITIALLY SUSPECT such a thing. But now, AFTER you know the nature of the person's affiliation and his specific activities, do you STILL think there's a conflict of interests that prevents him from objectively judging THESE links? If so, WHY? Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:52, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
...and if the links are appropriate when looked at individually, and you HAVE looked at them individually, would you still delete them? If so, I will argue that that is absurd. Michael Hardy ( talk) 22:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
None of these links was appropriate. We get this all the time: an eager advocate of a magazine, company, organization, or whatever, starts going through Wikipedia "helpfully" adding links to something their boss/employer/alma mater/organization has put out. Part of the reason for the COI policy is the knowledge that nobody can be the best judge when they have a horse in the race. Such links are invariably violations of
our guidelines on external links. Anybody who persists in linkspamming is going to get banned; that's as it should be. --
Orange Mike |
Talk
23:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
Caomhin wrote:
But I think it should have been on the content, to the extent possible, and Hu12 should have assumed good faith. Caomhin further wrote:
But Hu12 did not suggest that to JF. Hu12 blocked JF and accused him of bad-faith editing. Why must this policy be cited as justifying such a complete refusal to use any common sense?
I think JF in his editing has done little other than add these links characterized as "spam", and I'm going to award him a barnstar for it. He is certainly entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his addition of so much of this "spam". Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Someone wrote above "The spam call was on the action, not the content."
In this case the "spam call" consisted not of cautioning the user against creating an appearance of conflict, but of actually blocking the user in disregard of the content of the links.
I propose that such judgments based on "actions" disregarding content should be considered only grounds for suspicion, and one should be permitted to issue such a "spam call" ONLY after the content has been looked at, remembering that one must assume good faith.
The reason for this is to avoid situations like the one with user:jamesfranklingresham, who is certainly entitled to Wikipedia's gratitude for his mass addition of external links to his employer.
I'm surprised that some of the people above view it differently. They have forgotten that this is Wikipedia, where contributions from unqualified people are welcomed and judged on their content, not on the qualifications of the contributor. They propose to revert the excellent contributions of James Franklin on the grounds that he is seen as unqualified, where the exact same contributions from a qualified editor would have been welcomed. Michael Hardy ( talk) 17:43, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
A position was wrongly attributed to me:
I never thought appropriate content could or should excuse inappropriate behavior. What makes you think I ever thought or said anything like that? Adding appropriate context is NOT inappropriate behavior. There was no inappropriate behavior. There were only some grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior. The suspicion should have vanished when the content, and therefore the behavior, was found to be appropriate.
Don't misrepresent my position. I did not say appropriate content could excuse clearly inappropriate behavior. Do not attribute that position to me. Do not put words in my mouth. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Mass posting of links to one's employer's web site
= grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior.
But only grounds to suspect. It's not inappropriate behavior if the CONTENT is then found appropriate.
That is the proposed policy. Michael Hardy ( talk) 19:56, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
And what I'm saying is that it is NOT INAPPROPRIATE behavior if the content is appropriate. It may be grounds to SUSPECT inappropriate behavior and therefore to investigate, but it's not conclusive.
Look: we have a guy who made valuable contributions to Wikipedia, for which we should be grateful, who got rebuked and blocked as if he were a vandal. Shouldn't that embarrass some people? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:25, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
But you can't know that it's "canvassing" until you look at the content. And who ignored warnings? There wasn't a warning; there was only a block. I've given the user a barnstar for the contributions for which he got blocked. He deserved it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
"Prima facie" evidence creates a rebutable presumption, but it doesn't terminate the matter until the opportunity to rebut has been used. And that means: look at the content. If the content is then found appropriate, then the the presumption should be considered successfully rebuted. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:18, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Satori Son wrote:
It is hard to exaggerate how irrational these comments are. Quite aside from the nonsensical idea that I "chose" a case to support a proposal (I did not; the proposal arose from the important case), the fact is any case to which the proposal would be relevant would be one for which those questions would have to be asked. If the case did not involve those questions, it would have no relevance to the proposal. The fact is, a poorly chosen case, in the relevant sense, would be one for which the CONTENT WAS BAD. This is in fact an excellent csae for this proposal BECAUSE THE CONTENT WAS GOOD. If it had been a poorly chosen case in the relevant sense, I'd have to ask "What if the content had been good?". But I don't.
This is the perfectly chosen case, if anyone had been looking for one, precisely because the content was good and no one could reasonably object to it. Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:28, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
OK, enough. I have yet another post, reiterating (again) the same thing, from Michael Hardy on my talk page, and I personally am fed up. I am reminding users, and especially Michael Hardy of the following from WP:CIV, an official policy of Wikipedia. These must be avoided:
Judgmental tone in edit summaries ("snipped rambling crap") or talk page posts ("that's the stupidest thing I've ever seen").
In my personal opinion, Michael Hardy is in violation of this policy in referring to two users' contributions as "talking nonsense" and referring to one's as "irrational comments." Cut it out NOW, please, or I will have no choice than to bring this to the attention of WP:WQA. There are strong feelings here, but this is not how to express them. I will leave a copy of this on Michael Hardy's talk page.-- Wehwalt ( talk) 16:20, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I would like some help evaluating the contributions of User:Scooterhead73, all of which involve Cheetah Motorsports and it's products. The stuff is well written but appears to be clearly promotional in intent. I gave him a warning and reverted his changes to All-terrain vehicle but I'm not clear whether his additions to Scooter (motorcycle) shouldn't be reverted as well. Any takers? TIA -- Mwanner | Talk 00:32, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Over the last day or so, links to skimap.org (which apparently "launched" four days ago) have been added to about fifty different ski mountain articles by Crystalmountainskier. The website is certainly interesting, but I'm not sure it'd be critical for the readers of most of these articles, given that we already link to the official websites for the mountains (which almost always have the current official trail map available). I'm also concerned about the potential copyvio issue for the website itself (something they acknowledge on their website: "If you are a ski area and want your maps removed..."). And then there's WP:ADS and WP:NOT#LINKS. I've not asked the editor to remove the links, and I've not removed them myself. My general instinct is that, when it comes to "interesting" links, I think Google and DMOZ are better outlets... I mentioned this on the user's talk page ( here), and he responded quickly, calmly, and in good faith, but I'm still concerned the links are problematic. I'll put a link to this discussion on his talk page. Any thoughts would be helpful. user:j (aka justen) 22:57, 4 August 2008 (UTC)
Strongly support Crystalmountainskier, it was launched just 4 days ago (see Google cache of Skimap.org). While maybe there shouldn't be links on every page, there certainly should be a link somewhere on Wikipedia since it has been recognized as a very useful resource on multiple ski forums (epicski.com for one) over the last few days. Old ski maps are very hard to find, but tell a lot about the history of a ski area. The website certainly deserves some recognition on Wikipedia, as skiers really appreciate the resource. Non-skiers may not be interested, but then why should they be looking at these ski resort pages? The links certainly have significant relevance to skiers. user:WBSKI 16:57, 4 August 2008 (PST)
Been fighting this commercial sale site for weeks. Really ramping up last few days...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/71.187.17.183
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Loognut I think I remember some others that I could probably dig up if needed. Help please? Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)
My latest masterpiece, Wikipedia:Spam paranoia. EVCM ( talk) 05:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
I've been thinking about this - wouldn't it be more appropriate to call the policy "Wikipedia:Advertising"? That seems to be a more fitting term for the policy, since it seems to better encompass the scope of the policy, since I'm sure many consider spam to have a far narrower connotation than used here. When I think of "spam", I think of those advertisements promising sex, prescription drugs, and larger body parts, while much of what we call spam I would just call unwelcome advertising.
Also worth considering: Currently, Wikipedia:Advertising resolves to Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not a soapbox. This policy seems a better item to place on that title. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 16:40, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
I had thought it was not ok to link to an external cite that charged money to view it. I referred them to this section however I am being told that I am misunderstanding what "free" means. If someone wants to pay to find a reference or citation for use in a Wikipedia article they may. Then an editor can link to the pay to view site because it is "freely available" as a verifiable reference. The site in question is News Bank and I am not asking if it is a good source or not, I am asking if sending people there knowing they will have to pay to view full articles is allowed. Soundvisions1 ( talk) 21:18, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
We have noticeboards like Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard; should we also have a "spam noticeboard"? Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 19:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I run a website wihch interviews people. I put a link on one of the pepole who I had interviewed page and it was called spam by a user and removed. I did not mean to spam the page. I just thought that anyone looking at the page may want to read a interview with them. It was at the bottom of the page. I would like to add my interviews in future and add any useful info I pick up on them to the pages but I don't want to seem like a spammer. What would be the best way to do this? Do you want to see the page/website or is it best left unsaid? I don't want to seem like I am promoting the site on here. Thanks a lot to whoever is reading this.-- Lotsofinterviews ( talk) 22:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
This site has been discussed before here and here. It now appears that another anonymous user is on a mission to add this link under the guise of "tidying". It seems this user waits until the last octet of his IP changes with his ISP to add another link. See here and here. Also notice the last entry in this section that the link is also slipped in. Bobby I'm Here, Are You There? 16:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
Umm... if we take this very literally, this would mean that we couldn't even have an external link to walmart.com at Wal-Mart. That's silly, don't you think? - furrykef ( Talk at me) 11:12, 19 December 2008 (UTC)
Examples in articles tend to attract spam. A sentence such as, "For example, Chevron Corporation has ..." will attract editors to add more examples unlinked, internally linked, or externally linked, sometimes growing into lists. I've seen other editors refer to such examples as "spam magnets." In general, I think such example sentences should be removed unless referenced with a source independent of the examples where the examples are highly relevant to the article topic. From what I've seen of others doing the same thing, I think there's a great deal of consensus for this.
Also, can anyone think of a better article than WP:SPAM for including such guidelines? -- Ronz ( talk) 16:51, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
I've probably asked this in the past. What is the picture of a padlock next to links for? Is this documented anywhere? -- Ronz ( talk) 22:24, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
It is a solely a Microsoft advertisment. 140.247.196.77 ( talk) 04:25, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
Wikia is commercial, so any links pointing to it should be removed, no? Notowikia ( talk) 00:57, 25 January 2009 (UTC)
There is a difference of opinion as to whether Wilf_Lunn should have a link to the Wilf Lunn Website which it has been suggested should be classified as spam. comments? Thozza ( talk) 18:36, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This user is adding links to sell photographs, but the photographs seem relevant to the articles. My reading of WP:SPAM didn't give a clear cut answer - could someone check whether this is spam or not? Thanks. pgr94 ( talk) 09:32, 30 January 2009 (UTC)
User:Acsociety appears to be spamming links to his own (as claimed on user page) social networking and forum site, LAShTAL.com. Since the site claims to be the work of the "Aleister Crowley Society", the account would also appear to be a role account. Will in China ( talk) 03:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)
The current advertisement article Mojave Experiment is a prime example of how well ads can be done on wikipedia. So ads should formally be allowed by other companies.
Hello everyone, my user name is MSPaintNerd and I'm pretty new to editing in Wikipedia. I'll start out by saying I am the owner of the account on Youtube (MSPaintNerd) that shows the public domain movies in question. I tried to add an external link (Youtube) to some public domain videos (like Humorous Phases of Funny Faces from 1906--unquestionably in public domain) that I have in my possesion but the page was reverted back by the "XLinkBot" and left a message that basically claimed I was a malicious spammer. That was not my intent, and while I don't deny I wanted to garner some extra views for my account, I also wanted to post a relevant link to a public domain film that didn't already have have a video link to it. I've compiled a small list public domain movies I have that don't have any video links yet: Revolt of the Zombies, Hercules and the Tyrants of Babylon, Brideless Groom, The Man with the Golden Arm, Bear Shooters, Three Came Home, Daydreams, Rain, The Screaming Skull, They Made Me a Criminal, Hercules vs. the Moon Men, The Inspector General, Topper, and Track of the Moon Beast. My dilemma is whether the fact that I own the account that shows the videos constitues a conflict of interests or not. Would someone with the knowledge of such things either tell me 1) this is a conflict of interest and don't post the links or 2) you can post the links as long as you promise to not abuse it (and tell me how to override the "bot"). If I am granted permission to post the links you have my word that I will 1) only post links to public domain movies (which I have researched) and 2) will only post links that do not already have a video link (like google video or another Youtube). I would appreciate an answer from an administrator or someone with some authority. Thanks alot!!☺ ☻ ☺ ☻ P.S. If external links are considered spam how come so many already exist on Wikipedia, including video links? Thanks again!
Thank you for the response! Are you basically giving me permission to post such links as long as they are acceptable with the guidelines (and no other links exist yet)? If so thanks a lot!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by MSPaintnerd ( talk • contribs) 22:00, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the input guys! Of course the golden rule is to never violate the copyright (and I usually check several sites before I'm sastified its PD--including the almost always trustworthy Wikipedia). If several of you think this is a major COI then I will refrain from posting further links. Just thought I could get a win/win here with contributing to Wikipedia and also getting a bit of their traffic. Peace guys ☺ ☻ MSPaintnerd ( talk) 23:20, 21 March 2009 (UTC)
So are you guys saying that an external link to archive.org is cool? If so I'll just give a link to there and give up my other quest (it was worth a shot though right?) I would also like to note that on Humorous Phases of Funny Faces, the library of Congress link made you download the media to view where as it was just streamed from mine. Anyway, keep up the fight making Wikipedia awesome (and it is Awesome) ☺ ☻ MSPaintnerd ( talk) 23:37, 21 March 2009 (UTC)