![]() | This page 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. |
It would be nice if these terms were define. Also, do advertisement links count? PDBailey ( talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wy is this site on the blacklist? It seems a perfectly acceptable news source for local and national news; their coverage of international news-- which I can judge better --seems comparable to other good news sources. DGG ( talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion how to put torrent links to public domain content if there is an advertisement also or if to do so. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#The Pirate Bay... (and related). Results should be written into this guideline. -- Snek01 ( talk) 05:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on as to if we should allow usernames that are the names of companies. ie: User:Northwest Investment Firm. Since this seems to fall under the category of spam I am adding this link here: Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Disagree_with_change Chillum 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Do those whose Wikipedia edits are concerned mainly with getting rid of spam ever seek assistance of the kind referred to here? Are there policies saying they should seek such help? If not, maybe there should be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why would it be a personal attack? The article's talk page is not the appropriate place when it's about dozens of articles rather than just one. Furthermore, it proposes emendations to the policy on linkspam, so this present talk page is absolutely the right place for it. Why is a proposed policy change a "personal attack"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If a particular restaurant's name, National Coney Island redirects to Coney Island (restaurant), shouldn't there be a link to the restarant's homepage on the redirected page? 96.27.38.63 ( talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please write an appropriate {{ nutshell}} for this guideline? Thanks. -- œ ™ 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
[2] ? -- 84.44.177.125 ( talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Reading some very good comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mojo-hustla led me to think carefully about the way we refer to "spam" in Wikipedia, and I found I was not happy about it. I myself have in the past tended to use the word "spam" rather freely in edit summaries, but I now think this is a mistake. There are many people who run perfectly respectful businesses, and would not dream of using spam in the real world, who come to Wikipedia, and, with the best of intentions, place publicity material here. Of course this reflects a failure to understand the nature of Wikipedia, but they are doing nothing which would be regarded as reprehensible in normal business practice. And what happens? They find themselves labelled as spammers. This does not give them a friendly welcome to Wikipedia, it does not assume good faith, and by seeming like an aggressive accusation it is not likely to encourrage them to take a cooperative line. I wonder whether the word "spam" should be removed altogether from Wikipedia: {{db-spam}} could perhaps be replaced with something like db-promo. Likewise Wikipedia:Spam could be Wikipedia:PROMO, which at present is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Spam.
I am also posting this comment to the CSD talk page, but I suggest any response should be made here, to avoid duplicate discussions. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, A few days ago I put a comment at Talk:Darwin Information Typing Architecture about product mentions and inappropriate external links in the article, but haven't gotten a response there. I'd removed some product names already and was reverted. Could an uninvolved person please take a look? Should only take a few minutes. Cheers, Walk Up Trees ( talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place for this. Dispute resolution seems too formal and escalatory, but I need a third opinion. I am in a dispute over the understanding of spam, COI and what to do about them. with an admin who is apparently getting close to blocking a user for spamming, even though I think the user was honestly ignorant of policy and was adding material that was very useful.
So there are spam and COI issues, but the user, after being warned for spamming, has responded and apologised, pleaded (I believe genuine) ignorance asked for help with how to address COI issues, accepting that COI may mean s/he cannot put those kinds of links up. I have been trying to give that help, and there is every evidence that they are keen to contribute, within rules. Unfortunately, the admin who originally removed the links keeps reminding the user that s/he will be blocked if she continues to spam, and has accused me of encouraging spamming. In my eyes, the admin refuses genuinely to discuss any of the issues (just insisting it's all spam) while seeing no reason to look at any of the material added, despite being alerted that the links may not be spam), and has a very strong reading of WP:SPAM and WP:COI that in my eyes is not justified by policy - something I have been trying to explain. The user talk page is here and the appropriate section of the admin's talk page is here.
Is my reading of the spam rules and the appropriacy of the admin's postings all awry? I've come here to get a third opinion because I don't see the discussion going anywhere without it, and I'm struggling to remain civil. I should point out that I am an atheist (see my user page) with certainly no motivation to support a religious organisation per se. My motivation is to help new users learn how to contribute better, and how to solve COI problems that obstruct good sourcing getting onto wikipedia. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this message. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Some admins are reluctant to delete spam user(talk) pages on the grounds that it doesn't show up in internet searches and that it is in the userspace (even though G11 applies to all pages). I was keeping an eye on this which had the speedy declined (because it appeared to be a sandbox – fair enough, no arguments there), but I've also been keeping an eye on this too, and today it showed up (fifth entry down). So, userpages do show up on internet searches (even subpages; admittedly, it took a few days), just in case you didn't know. ;) And I will carry on dealing with them. :) – B.hotep • talk• 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Additional note – obviously, as time goes by, that Google link will drop down the page rank (it's now down two to seventh). – B.hotep • talk• 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We have something resembling consensus here, but I think maybe the "spam" community needs to be involved too, partly because I'm not sure where the emendations to policies should appear. Maybe some of them in the SPAM policy.
There are standard template warning people not to post spam links.
They are misused.
A user writes material that would be considered a valuable contribution to Wikipedia if put into Wikipedia. But they put it in an external site. Then they add external links from Wikipedia. No advertising, no self-promotion. But they get a notice that says this:
This template should not be used except when there is thought to be advertising or promotion, or an attempt to alter search engine rankings. Nor should it be used when the links are not "inappropriate". There's a difference between a link being inappropriate, and a link being added by an inappropriate person, when a conflict of interest would be the reason why he should recuse himself.
That is rude newbie biting.
Even if a person were guilty of some offense, one should not use a template that includes that offense among a list of ten other offenses. That in effect accuses them of all offenses in the list. That's dishonest and unjust.
On my talk page I was told that in the instance that brought this to my attention, the templates "have been formulated with great attention to precision regarding graduated severity." That is nonsense. "Great attention to precision" doesn't just hit someone with a list of offenses if he may be guilty of one of them; "great attention to precision" does not say material is "inappropriate" when what is thought to be inappropriate is not the material itself but the identity of the person adding it; "great attention to precision" does not suggest that someone is trying to alter search engine rankings when one does not assert that there's some reason to suspect that (let alone hint at what such a reason could be); "great attention to precision" does not does accuse someone of advertising or self-promotion when one does not claim there's some reason to suspect that.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite having raised my concerns regarding the use addition of hundreds of links to the Worldcat website at Template talk:Infobox Book, an important question as to why Wikipedia should be used as platform to create hundreds of links direct to the Worldcat website has been ignored, perhaps by those who do not want those links removed. There is no reason why Worldcat should be given special treatment by linking to their site in this way, as we don't do it for any other non-commecial or comercial cataloguing service. It is not appropriate to add these lists on two grounds:
For instance, Wikipedia does not support direct links to the Library of Congress website via a LCCN, even though it is one of the largest book collections in the World. Whether you agree or disagree with the creation of these links, please make your opinions known at Template talk:Infobox Book or at the current discussion at WP:VPP#Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Added a section on bookspam; it occurs often enough that it ought to be mentioned in the guideline. Durova 345 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I'm much happier with Johnuniq's rewrite. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
A relevant report is at WP:COIN#McGraw-Hill. Two users ( 96.248.91.79 and 198.45.19.50) are busy adding "further reading" sections which amazingly refer to books from a particular publisher. Why wouldn't publishers spam when it's so easy? Johnuniq ( talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Another new example of bookspam: Special:Contributions/Ambarsande. I reverted the one from Kissing number problem but there are a lot more. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Added this section. This is a fairly pervasive problem and a very aggressive form of link-building scheme employed by spammers-- Hu12 ( talk) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is information concerning a non-profit organization "spam" as anticipated by this guideline? Posit an IRS-approved non-profit having a single article in WP mainspace. Would that be instantly deletable as spam? Would a single article in userspace about such an organization be deletable instantly as spam? In each case posit that the organization has no products of any kind for sale on the page, nor would it ask for funds on the page. Collect ( talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/71.175.252.2, Special:Contributions/Highspeedrailusa, Special:Contributions/98.111.181.133 -- NE2 01:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I remind contributors that this page is for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Spam, and not for reporting or discussing individual cases of spamming. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Are references to chambers of commerce, otherwise without notability, allowable as external links? If not, shouldn't they be mentioned here? Student7 ( talk) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, why is this particular website banned? Most of the users whom abused it were proven to be sock-puppets and have been indefinitely banned, and this site was one of many dozens the users in questions used. However, I personally cannot see how the site itself can be considered 'spam', and it does contain a source of helpful information and evidence-backed cases regarding Satanic ritual abuse. Thank you, Aangman14 ( talk) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. No offence, but, frankly, yes, I did expect this form of response. Disappointing, yes, but, sadly, not shocking for Wikipedia, I fear... Whom used it as spam? A couple of sockpuppets? And what was it used with? A couple dozen of other websites? The website itself is an excellent source for ritual abuse information; I myself am of the view Wikipedia, or, more specifically, select users with an interest in such topics, is indeed heavily suppressing information concerning valid evidence involving the issue. Now, I understand that people such as you consider it far beneath your notice to consider these matters, but has the thought that those whom were opposed to the site used it as spam in the first place, to get it blocked from Wikipedia? I cannot imagine how the continued blocking of the site could help Wikipedia at all, with the IP Addresses of the abusers indefinitely blocked, and with so few people even knowing of the site's very existence, but I grow weary indeed of debating an issue such as this. I will not embarass myself further by continuing this discussion. Thank you. Aangman14 ( talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I just tried the Microsoft's Detecting Online Commercial Intention mentioned in section How to identify spam and spammers, results give “Non-Commercial Intention n%” (percentage). I know we can't put a clear limit but is it possible to get some kind of score range? Or at least from what percentage can we start to consider an article to be advertisement? - Cy21( talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:LTA has been nominated for deletion; discussion here. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago, I created a template, {{
contact info}}
, to cover up contact information that is included within an article nominated for deletion as spam. Now I'm having second thoughts about this template, and I'd like to hear the community's feedback on its existence and its documentation. The template is listed on {{
spam-nav}}
and has been from the day it was created. -- Blanchardb -
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth- timed
01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to challenge my additions to guitarist's pages being considered spam. I have two questions I would like answered. First, why are sentences about Rolling Stone magazine's ranking lists not spam and Gibson.com's ranking lists are? Both are from respected publications in the pop music community. Why is Wikipedia biased toward one and not the other? This appears hypocritical to me. Maybe there's a technicality I am not aware of.
Second, I find it interesting that some references to the Gibson.com Top 50 Guitarists list that I did not put on Wikipedia remain on the site. For instance, on Danny Gatton's page, there is a sentence about his Gibson.com ranking that follows his Rolling Stone ranking. I was not the person who put this here. The other day, I incorrectly added an outside link to the sentence. That was my mistake and it was rightly removed by another editor. However, they didn't remove the original sentence. It remains on the page. So clear this up for me: It's OK for the Gibson.com list references to be posted, just not by me? I don't understand. Please explain. Thank you. Wawzenek (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawzenek ( talk • contribs)
There to be added OFFTOPIC section in wikipedia. If one sends something not directly related with title of page - then he is to be adviced to make a new page. There is no need to ask for creation of new pages. But as for existent pages... Some articles are definitely not very good like "I don't need to read anything", so no need of them. That is question of wikisource, let's see —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.133.108.86 (
talk)
20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Check out this tool at Linkypedia, it is noting all the links to Amazon and rating pages by number of links to them, it could be a great way to fight overlinking to Amazon as a reference in Wikipedia! Sadads ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've come across several instances recently where it is clear that editors are adding references to their own work (or their organisation) to articles. I'm not here to report the users, but some examples are Wikiproject1400 ( talk · contribs) - all refs linking were to news releases from the Agricultural Research Service, 83.215.123.233 ( talk · contribs) all to books published by one philosopher and today 118.97.235.139 ( talk · contribs) - adding links to papers published by one scientist. There are many other similar cases that I've come across as well. Currently the bookspam and refspam sections don't really make clear whether these edits are problematic or not; 83.215's obviously are but the other two are more borderline and I think we need to establish a consensus as to how we should deal with edits like these. My personal view as that due to possible COI problems, editors should not add references to their own work as it often appears that even if their edits are made in good faith, that they are here to plug their own work rather than improve the project. We do need to consider that authors are experts in their field and so we should try not to WP:BITE them either. I suggest that we add something to this page (and maybe to the COI guideline) saying that editors should be extremely cautious adding references to their own work and ideally add it to the talk page first. The exception to this would be if an editor is an expert who has added references to many different authors, in which case including their own papers would be ok. Does this sound sensible? Smartse ( talk) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first sentence of the guideline because I don't think it was updated after the bookspam and refspam sections were added a year ago. This type of spamming is definitely distinct from the other two types. Smartse ( talk) 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is being held at the Village pump (misc) concerning the merits/problems of using FindAGrave. Mass removals have been suggested. You are invited to join in the discussion. Moxy ( talk) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:BOOKSPAM is discussed here, so you should be aware that a new proposed guideline for WP:Further reading sections is being developed. Tijfo098 ( talk) 05:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am here to bitch about the spam filter notice because it made me lose a good addition to an article by not allowing me to return to the edit and fix it, but rather only to return to viewing the article, losing the edit. I tried going back but becuase it was internet not safari the text entered was gone. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 06:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything in this guideline that I'm missing (or in some other guideline) which address wikilink spamming. If not, should there be? In particular I'm thinking of indiscriminate additions of POV links to "See also" sections, such as here. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Are these links spam or not? [10]
If not then I will re-add them... Modernist ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
LinkSearch reports that
188 pages (mostly articles) are linked to http://*.londontown.com, an online travel guide. One specific contributor,
Gonzo Baggins (
talk ·
contribs), seems to be responsible for a lot of them some of the more recent ones,updated 12:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC) but s/he's generally using it as a poor source rather than as obious spam. I don't want to go bullying someone just because they don't understand
WP:RS but I don't have time right now to review 188 articles. Can someone with a bit more expertise please assess the situation? Thanks. BTW I've left a note for that user so they know about this discussion, and I've invited
Thundernlightning to comment as s/he has been cleaning up those links recently. -
Pointillist (
talk)
10:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
First off i have not deleted a large bulk of your contributions. I deleted (actually undid) one edit on the hotels in London section for the main reason I gave you. You added a section for London Hotels that have been in films (not notable for any other reason). The number of hotels used in London is in the 100's and thus an endless list of hotels i believe would add nothing to that page even if you feel the article benefited from this type of in formation. A more fitting place would be in the hotels own page. You chose to add a handful of those large number of hotels and i noticed the weak citation to londontown. I looked at your other edits and noticed a large bulk of your posts have used that website for citation. This raises eyebrows in that its a weak source and associated with affiliate activities. I questioned the large number of links not just on the basis of being a weak (and not original) source but how you came to find those links. For example the first time you posted them a link was in the langham hotels section http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Langham_Hotel%2C_London&action=historysubmit&diff=409785013&oldid=408382780 when you linked to http://www.londontown.com/London/Top_Ten_London_Boutique_Hotels Can I ask how you came to decide they were an authoritative source when the hotels own website gave this information? http://london.langhamhotels.co.uk/info/history_langham_london.htm I found this to be consistent enough across your posts to warranty removing the londontown links. I have not removed your full edits, only the weak citations. I have noted other weak sources such as http://londonhotelsinsight.com, an affiliate hotel website whose articles are written by SEO to embed links to their clients websites. Interestingly one of those using londoninsight for search engine promotion is londontown. For example http://londonhotelsinsight.com/2011/01/19/hotels-fail-to-provide-good-wifi-at-own-peril/. You will see the embedded keyworded link to london hotels is actually an outbound links to londowntown. I do not want to discourage you from adding to wikipedia I would just try and show you how certain links have raised flags and sticking to the authoritative/original sources will be to everyones benefit. Thundernlightning ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thundernlightning- I don't want to get into an argument over this, and apologise if my earlier post was confrontational- I was frustrated.
However I do feel that your attitude towards me has been accusatory from the outset, without any real justification. I understand what you are saying about 'flags' being raised, but feel that you have immediately jumped to your own conclusions rather than bring it up for discussion as pointilist has done.
Regarding the film section- I added this because I thought it might be of interest to anyone looking for information on hotels in london, and the hotels I picked I felt were notable as they had been used for significant scenes, not just as 'backdrops'as you say. I also thought that others might add to the list. I would say that this is a matter of opinion whether this section was worth adding or not.
You asked, "can I ask how you came to decide they were an authorative source when the hotels own website gave this information?" (which by the way comes off as very patronising and sounding like an inquisition)
- As I mentioned before, I tend to add information to wikipedia as and when I come across it, and the londontown page was where I found the information. I thought the source was reliable as an authority on the subject, so used it, but will stand corrected if this is not the case. Also, wouldn't citing the official hotel site be classed as a primary source and therefore against wikipedia guidelines?
I can't really comment on what you say about embedded links etc as this is not something I'm familiar with. Once again, I used the londonhotelsinsight link because I found information that I thought might be useful to share. Apologies if this is not the case.
Once again, I don't want to get into an argument, and have only pointed out some points about your comments to try and demonstrate how they can be intimidating to less experienced users such as myself. Gonzo Baggins ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I did say to you on your talk page that the hotels in london discussion page would be the appropriate place to gather opinions on whether hotels that have been seen in/used for films would be a good edition on that page. I have also corrected you twice about you stating i have deleted large amounts of your postings. I haven't, i have undone just one post. All other changes were to remove inappropriate citation to londontown. I have not even removed all your londontown links, i await others to give their opinions if it amounts to spamming and if the links should stay. The hotels main website is already linked on the example I gave. You seem to be saying that every hotel page should have links citating the information from any website except the source/main website? Im not sure i follow that reasoning. Im not sure the problem here. Londontown is a poor source so simply find more authoritative sources and try not to link to affiliate or seo sites unless they are the sole and strong source. And if you do so try and avoid linking multiple times to that site and the same page on multiple articles. Thundernlightning ( talk) 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have looked further into the links posted by gonzo. On every url of londonhotelsinsight(.com) he has posted there is a link to londontown(.com), always in the side twitter section and sometimes also keyword embedded into the main text under London Hotels for example. I then googled for both sites and indeed these two sites are strongly connected with articles that name and/or credit both sites together. londonhotelinsight is owned by Positive Partnerships Ltd a seo company whose owner blogs on behalf of londontown. I believe all links posted by the user to the 2 sites should be removed and i would like others opinions. Thundernlightning ( talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
LondonTown.com provides worthwhile overview entries on London streets, especially concerning geographical information, that are well ranked by Google. I wouldn't say a LondonTown.com entry on its own is a sign of notability, but it is a reliable source, as one of a range of references for a London street entry on Wikipedia. It is worthwhile as "further reading" at least. Just my thoughts. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to blacklist this blog as it is persistently being refspammed through random accounts and IPs on cricket related articles. --- Managerarc talk 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is purely anecdotal, but I constantly come across mention of The Daily Show in biography articles after a guest appears on the show. They are usually similar in style and tone. This may be simple systemic fandom, or an organized effort. Has anyone done a more scientific study to see how prevalent The Daily Show mentions are on Wikipedia?
Television talk show appearances seem barely notable on their own, unless something notable happened or was said. One rarely sees 1950s and 60s Johnny Carson appearances mentioned in Wikipedia bios, for example. For most famous people it would be a tedious exercise to list every single TV, radio and newspaper mention. Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
How is an external link to an article on domestic violence be considered spam or advertising when it simply makes reference to the story of a particular case? Wmcg ( talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This part - "with the purpose of promoting an outside organization". How do we know what the purpose of an edit is, from the editor's point of view? Surely that point is contentious, and if we say an article is spam, we are (by guideline) calling the editor a spammer. There are many editors that have added spam-like content thinking they were adding useful content. Surely we should focus on the effect of the edits and not the intention? What about something like "This page in a nutshell: Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the effect of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea; it is considered harmful, please do not do it and if you find some, please remove or rewrite the content." ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if this is a new topic or an old one: "Spammers Exploiting Wikipedia for Fake Pharma Products" (5/30/2011) -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In WP:SPAM#Tagging articles prone to spam there are two examples of banners that can be inserted in inappropriate articles, and each banner is accompanied by an explanatory sentence. There is supposed to be a third explanatory sentence saying:
However, this explanatory sentence has become incorporated in the second banner. It should be removed from the second banner so that it stands alone as advice about speedy deletion for inappropriate articles. Dolphin ( t) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to dealing with the issue of external link promotions. Could someone have a look at this so I can learn where the boundaries lie?
I see a WPian has been removing some entries already, with edit-summaries such as "Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. All you people pedaling writing sites need to fuck off." Hmm: perhaps undignified, but I get the idea. The whole category probably needs monitoring, which I'm willing to do if I know more about it. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I know a method of spamming. It is the following: a spammer sends a message that contains the following: "Please, find x users who hadn't got this message,and send them this message",where x>1. Then there 'd be 1 message,then x+1, x^2+x+1, e.t.c. To prevent it, it ought to be forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.129.78 ( talk) 05:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I haven't. Станислав Крымский ( talk) 10:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Section Wikipedia:Spam#Be careful when giving examples briefly discusses examples. I observe in many articles that products are pitched as examples of the concepts explained in the articles. Examples:
I would like to see more explicit guidelines here about when it is appropriate to give product examples. We want to avoid that all vendors look for places where to add their product names as examples.
-- Bikeborg ( talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it is difficult to give very precise and generally applicable guidelines. But that is true for many topics treated here in the Wikipedia namespace. Some more specific guidelines could simplify the life of contributors and reduce edit wars. Should we start by collecting some positive and negatives examples to get a better handle on what the advice should be? -- Bikeborg ( talk) 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been reading EVERYTHING I can on spam, advertising, and the like policies on Wikipedia. However, I haven't seen a ruling on whether linking to GLAM resources constitutes spamvertising. If the historical materials of an organization (note: my own archival collections represent non-profit, usually educational organizations, but this discussion could be expanded to for-profit organizational archives) reside in an archives or other GLAM institution, then wouldn't the helpfulness of the external link outweigh the spamvertising? Any insight into this issue would be rather appreciated. I wanted to add that I am trying to expand and improve the articles on which I am posting external links to my archive, and trying not to just spam my links around. However, I believe that people should know where the archives of these people/organizations live because they can be valuable research tools; perhaps that need justifies a little link spamming? alifabeta ( talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This may not be germane but, how do we know if someone is deliberately acting like a spammer or his actions are based on lack of knowledge about
Wikipedia policies?
What I intend to bring in this discussion is, “how far would WP:AGF be applicable in such cases?”
[if you don't mind, please notify me on my talk page, after responding to my questions. BTW, this is not a decree or anything like that. Thank you.] Brendon is here 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
How to report link spam, especially if the links are Twitter and Wikia? Thanks. Dede2008 ( talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
How do I disable the internal ads that keep on bugging me about donating? 189.215.203.123 ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an interesting discussion at WT:External links#Removing links on request where a site owner wants their external links removed from articles because their presence hurts the site's SEO! Comments about the issue at the other page would be welcome. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Scr206 appears to be an WP:SPA solely concerned with writing about the Pacific Northwest Labor and Civil Rights History Projects and adding links starting with http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/ to wikipedia. Is this SPAM? I thought it was, notifed the user and reverted some of the link additions (but not content additions, which I still think can be merged into something useful), but User:Beyond My Ken differed, reverting a whole bunch of my reversions and other edits. Could someone offer a third opinion please? Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
How can that be listed with Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Elam ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The project pages Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:User pages provide unclear, contradicting, or no info about what to do with spam on a user page. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#user_page_spam. -- Espoo ( talk) 18:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion ongoing at Talk:ALCAT test about whether articles should include mention of vendor-solicited pro-athlete endorsements of the product described in the article. Said endorsements have been published in usually-RS publications, but we have no way to know what inducements or persuasions the athletes received in order to make such statements to the press. We do know that the company directly reaches out to athletes and trainers to promote the product (it's shown prominently on their website). We also know that the WP article was originally used as advertising by shill accounts, though that has largely been corrected now. Comments on how to address such situations would be helpful. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this constitute WP:CITESPAM? Till 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have come across an advertisement on Elance for someone trying to hire someone else to spam Wikipedia: https://www.elance.com/j/wikipedia-contributor-wanted/37646140 I don't know who I need to message to prevent any spam from this person. Is there any way to block the links to 'myathens.tv' and 'mymykonos.tv' to prevent anybody from adding links to them? Kind regards, Matt ( talk) 03:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Together we can make our world a safer place <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamelaness ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How many edits do I have to make before Wikipedia stops forcing me to enter a code every time I post an EL on a talk page? I am (not) Iron Man ( talk) 10:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Can't find info on reporting abuse from wikipedia.org domain names. I've been getting a lot of recent email spam with @wikipedia.org return addresses, but due to the prevalence of Wikipedia, doing a google search to find where to report spam only turns up wikipedia articles on the subject of spam. - 24.130.65.122 ( talk) 01:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
From Cindamuse's comment on the talk page of a blocked editor:
Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject prior to notability would be considered promotional and inappropriate. (emphasis added)
I like it. Useful, short, and to the point. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going back and forth with a couple of other editors that a link to the current home of the website Encyclopedia Dramatica can't appear on the article's sidebar, or, I suppose, anywhere within the article, because it happens to be on the spam blacklist. I feel the spirit of this policy should allow a redirect, since the purpose of linking to a site that is the subject of an article isn't by any stretch of the imagination "spam" (the article has survived [a record?] 24 WP:AFDs), regardless of the rather WP:BURO matter of its existence on the blacklist. Is this something we should explain more explicitly in this policy, or is it already covered in WP:LINKLOVE, as the link obviously serves an encyclopedic purpose? -- Kendrick7 talk 02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This is just a warning message that a new bot has been designed to seek out blacklisted links and tag the pages containing them with {{
Spam-links}}
.—
cyberpower
ChatOnline
08:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I've just started a requested move discussion for Wikipedia:Advertisements, which has some relation to this guideline. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Advertisements#Requested move if anyone is interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Are people still using "what links here" when investigating spam? Do you assume "what links here" will show links on user talk pages? There is a question at WT:Flow#What links here and boards (flow) which reminds me that WP:FLOW will replace user talk pages (probably later this year), and that will radically alter how talk pages work. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone advise what the course of action is for someone spamming links? I reverted several links by User:Buckinghamgate to 'direct hotels . co . uk'. That user has now reapeared as GeorgeThomsonSmith who is now reverting my changes and using redirects to hide the final destination to that website. Thundernlightning ( talk) 12:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
LoungeBuddyLucy (
talk ·
contribs) is adding links to
www
I'm on the fence on whether this is WP:REFSPAM or a legitimate attempt to improve the article. TJRC ( talk) 20:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your comment. Though loungebuddy.com was initially only a site for a phone app finding airport lounges, it is now also creating great sources concerning all air travel information. Indeed, all the points that I'm adding references were previously unreferenced, and can be found on the pages from the links. This is a legitimate attempt to improve the article. LoungeBuddyLucy ( talk) 20:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
would read better if written "How to not be a spammer".
The existing sentence reads as if it intends to give the reader advice on how to spam correctly (or not spam incorrectly). I got a chuckle out of this, but to increase the legitimacy of the article / not confuse syntax-naïve readers, it might be best to consider a change to the latter example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.209.7 ( talk) 05:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There looks to be a 4th form of Wikipedia spam now, where a Wikipedia page is used as verification as part of an e-mail scam. There is currently an e-mail doing the rounds using the article Liliane Bettencourt as the basis of verifying the subject:
Hello, I, Liliane authenticate this email. You can read about me on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliane_Bettencourt I write to you because I intend to give to you a portion of my Net-worth, hoping it would be of help to you and others too. Respond for confirmation. With love, Liliane Bettencourt ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
There is almost an edit war in progress with multiple contributors adding a message of warning to alert unsuspecting people who may have received the e-mail, however each of these are being quickly removed citing no reliable sources. Some contributors have attempted to invoke WP:Ignore All Rules, but this was rejected as it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT, this does not seem to fit the norm.
How should scenarios like this be handled? The multiple edits are disruptive, yet I can understand the justification behind them. It does not seem this type of situation is catered for in WP policies. Some discussion here: Talk:Liliane Bettencourt Screech1616 ( talk) 12:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Screech1616 ( talk) 12:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I continue to read on Wikipedia only to get the $3.00 spam promotions. Really tired of it. Most of the clowns doing the editing are so anal that if you change anything (even if true), it's removed. The editors are now paranoid. No more spam please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.98.146 ( talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The following user accounts have been spamming for a company variously called Ventom Network India, Ventom Media, Ventom International Motion Corp, Ventom India, etc.:
Some of the users have already been blocked. A SPI is probably needed, but thought I should flag it up here too. Thanks, Dai Pritchard ( talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Jgzheng ( talk · contribs) / 24.30.12.49 ( talk · contribs)
Specifically :
I reverted a few run-of-the-mill self-promotion ELs today, plugging some undergrad essays (when they can't even spell "Burners-Lee" right they're not that good). Next edit and they're back. As I don't want to be accused of WP:OWN (Catching some flak for that at ANI today) I'd appreciate if a few others could keep an eye on things. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- jgzheng: the resources are legit published book chapters and put in the right section of book chapters. I would consider as a personal attack to say it is undergrad essay. Wikipedia clearly need editors that need to read other encyclopedia articles otherwise better articles go somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgzheng ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to write an essay for the Signpost about the problem I see with certain type of spam. Please leave comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Lots_of_articles_about_companies_and_products_are_failing_notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I love the redirect WP:ADMASQ, which User:ukexpat created. However it occurs to me that WP:ADMASK might be an even clearer way to spell it here on the target page, as one of the 3 listed aliases -- with the benefit that "mask" is a real word, easy to remember, and related to the root meaning of an spam article "masking" its intention. Anyone agree? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
R to section}}
and {{
R from shortcut}}
.
Si Trew (
talk)
06:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
how i cam protect my page from deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAzam150 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In reference to my Signpost OP-ED at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-02/Special report, where User:Smallbones predicted "There's a new scandal every 3-6 months on related topics" (and here we are) I think we need a new approach. We should start reviewing (purging...) categories about Companies from the spam entries. As I noted, it's not "one in ten", in my experience, based on what fails WP:NCOMPANY, it is more like "Two out three". Again, I spend several hours today, nominated a dozen or so spam entries, and again I am depressed at how little this seem to have changed. There are thousands of entries we need to review, prod and follow up with AfD if needed. Any ideas on how to go about that would be helpful. Pinging editors who indicated an interest in discussing this further: User:GamerPro64, User:KieranTribe, User:Elekhh, User:Maury Markowitz, User:The Banner, User:Brandmeister, User:Blue Riband, User:MER-C, User:Randykitty, User:Staszek Lem, User:DGG. The best I have been able to come out is some paste-in templates that shave at least a little bit from writing out each new PROD/AFD: User:Piotrus/Templates. But we need more . Polish Wikipedia has a built-in "delete this article" link in the left-side "Tools" that would be very helpful to import, for example. (Click, write a rationale, select a WikiProject to notify, and the script will finish the nom, list it, and notify the author). But what we also need is some kind of serious collaboration drive, aimed at reviewing and deleting those entries. Something like a deletionist contest, perhaps... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the problem is not in tools; the problem is that too much slack is given to businesses and products. Many a time I got frustrated when the Afd-"keepers" vote, like, "keep, much coverage". In fact the whole coverage is PR babble; i.e., what is called "business as usual". And from what I hear, it is easily done by paid-socks.
Therefore I would suggest stricter rules enforcement:
In addition, I didn't check myself right now, but WP:GNG in business-related areas must reflect the fact that it is an order of "business as usual" that every startup generates huge amount of buzz, which should be discounted. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As well as WP:GNG, articles have to pass the requirement of expressing significance in order to not be speedy deleted under WP:A7. If we see an article on a company/website etc that seems to have plenty of references but does not indicate why it is important then that is arguably sufficient reason to speedily delete. I've just found Soda PDF which seems to be a good example of this (although in this case I opted to PROD it instead). Waggers TALK 09:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ordinary profit making companies (and their executives) are no more than half the problem. Non-profits of various sorts are an equal problem, although they are sometimes less aggressive about it. They do use staff PR people and outside PR agencies to write spammy articles about themselves and their leaders. They too have fallen for some of the schemes of the undeclared paid editors. They too have often gotten away with it because nobody is interested in pursing they deletions. They too use puffery and try to pass off minor mentions as significant references. They too try to insert inappropriate web-site contents: minor officers, trivial activities. And they are even more likely to get away with it because people here tend to be somewhat less hostile. Many of us sympathize more with the purposes of many of these organizations than we do with the those of profit-making business.Given the life-sexperiences of most of us, this is understandable, but it is equaly incompatible with the making of a npov encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Piotrus, sorry I can't be more specific right now in support of any particular proposal but I saw your complaint elsewhere that not a single person agreed with your position with corpspam is a problem. So: I agree, corpspam is a serious problem. I've personally been trying to combat it via the COIN process and I'll probably stay there barring any really fundamental change in Wikipedia processes. I've also made some really concrete suggestions for fighting said spam at User:Doc James/Paid editing. If anybody reading this hasn't seen that yet, it's full of really interesting ideas, some of which are sure non-starters, but some that could be developed. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see two of my recent proposals at NCOMPANY for how to tighten the requirements on sources (and why): Are trade magazines/portals acceptable? and Companies notable for one event. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I know this is a little off-topic, but is there a place to deal with phishing sites on Wikipedia as well? I recently struck out references to a site that had been hijacked to include a phishing page. WP:PHISHING was of no help, as it described a wiki-phishing incident.
Phishing, which is basically just a rogue version of spam, could be a serious problem to readers, so I just wanted to know where I can get referred to deal with phishing sites. epic genius ( talk) 01:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This page 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. |
It would be nice if these terms were define. Also, do advertisement links count? PDBailey ( talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
Wy is this site on the blacklist? It seems a perfectly acceptable news source for local and national news; their coverage of international news-- which I can judge better --seems comparable to other good news sources. DGG ( talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Discussion how to put torrent links to public domain content if there is an advertisement also or if to do so. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Archive235#The Pirate Bay... (and related). Results should be written into this guideline. -- Snek01 ( talk) 05:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a debate going on as to if we should allow usernames that are the names of companies. ie: User:Northwest Investment Firm. Since this seems to fall under the category of spam I am adding this link here: Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Disagree_with_change Chillum 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)
Do those whose Wikipedia edits are concerned mainly with getting rid of spam ever seek assistance of the kind referred to here? Are there policies saying they should seek such help? If not, maybe there should be. Michael Hardy ( talk) 16:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Why would it be a personal attack? The article's talk page is not the appropriate place when it's about dozens of articles rather than just one. Furthermore, it proposes emendations to the policy on linkspam, so this present talk page is absolutely the right place for it. Why is a proposed policy change a "personal attack"? Michael Hardy ( talk) 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
If a particular restaurant's name, National Coney Island redirects to Coney Island (restaurant), shouldn't there be a link to the restarant's homepage on the redirected page? 96.27.38.63 ( talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
Can someone please write an appropriate {{ nutshell}} for this guideline? Thanks. -- œ ™ 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
[2] ? -- 84.44.177.125 ( talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)
Reading some very good comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mojo-hustla led me to think carefully about the way we refer to "spam" in Wikipedia, and I found I was not happy about it. I myself have in the past tended to use the word "spam" rather freely in edit summaries, but I now think this is a mistake. There are many people who run perfectly respectful businesses, and would not dream of using spam in the real world, who come to Wikipedia, and, with the best of intentions, place publicity material here. Of course this reflects a failure to understand the nature of Wikipedia, but they are doing nothing which would be regarded as reprehensible in normal business practice. And what happens? They find themselves labelled as spammers. This does not give them a friendly welcome to Wikipedia, it does not assume good faith, and by seeming like an aggressive accusation it is not likely to encourrage them to take a cooperative line. I wonder whether the word "spam" should be removed altogether from Wikipedia: {{db-spam}} could perhaps be replaced with something like db-promo. Likewise Wikipedia:Spam could be Wikipedia:PROMO, which at present is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Spam.
I am also posting this comment to the CSD talk page, but I suggest any response should be made here, to avoid duplicate discussions. JamesBWatson ( talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)
Hi, A few days ago I put a comment at Talk:Darwin Information Typing Architecture about product mentions and inappropriate external links in the article, but haven't gotten a response there. I'd removed some product names already and was reverted. Could an uninvolved person please take a look? Should only take a few minutes. Cheers, Walk Up Trees ( talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place for this. Dispute resolution seems too formal and escalatory, but I need a third opinion. I am in a dispute over the understanding of spam, COI and what to do about them. with an admin who is apparently getting close to blocking a user for spamming, even though I think the user was honestly ignorant of policy and was adding material that was very useful.
So there are spam and COI issues, but the user, after being warned for spamming, has responded and apologised, pleaded (I believe genuine) ignorance asked for help with how to address COI issues, accepting that COI may mean s/he cannot put those kinds of links up. I have been trying to give that help, and there is every evidence that they are keen to contribute, within rules. Unfortunately, the admin who originally removed the links keeps reminding the user that s/he will be blocked if she continues to spam, and has accused me of encouraging spamming. In my eyes, the admin refuses genuinely to discuss any of the issues (just insisting it's all spam) while seeing no reason to look at any of the material added, despite being alerted that the links may not be spam), and has a very strong reading of WP:SPAM and WP:COI that in my eyes is not justified by policy - something I have been trying to explain. The user talk page is here and the appropriate section of the admin's talk page is here.
Is my reading of the spam rules and the appropriacy of the admin's postings all awry? I've come here to get a third opinion because I don't see the discussion going anywhere without it, and I'm struggling to remain civil. I should point out that I am an atheist (see my user page) with certainly no motivation to support a religious organisation per se. My motivation is to help new users learn how to contribute better, and how to solve COI problems that obstruct good sourcing getting onto wikipedia. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this message. VsevolodKrolikov ( talk) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Some admins are reluctant to delete spam user(talk) pages on the grounds that it doesn't show up in internet searches and that it is in the userspace (even though G11 applies to all pages). I was keeping an eye on this which had the speedy declined (because it appeared to be a sandbox – fair enough, no arguments there), but I've also been keeping an eye on this too, and today it showed up (fifth entry down). So, userpages do show up on internet searches (even subpages; admittedly, it took a few days), just in case you didn't know. ;) And I will carry on dealing with them. :) – B.hotep • talk• 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Additional note – obviously, as time goes by, that Google link will drop down the page rank (it's now down two to seventh). – B.hotep • talk• 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
We have something resembling consensus here, but I think maybe the "spam" community needs to be involved too, partly because I'm not sure where the emendations to policies should appear. Maybe some of them in the SPAM policy.
There are standard template warning people not to post spam links.
They are misused.
A user writes material that would be considered a valuable contribution to Wikipedia if put into Wikipedia. But they put it in an external site. Then they add external links from Wikipedia. No advertising, no self-promotion. But they get a notice that says this:
This template should not be used except when there is thought to be advertising or promotion, or an attempt to alter search engine rankings. Nor should it be used when the links are not "inappropriate". There's a difference between a link being inappropriate, and a link being added by an inappropriate person, when a conflict of interest would be the reason why he should recuse himself.
That is rude newbie biting.
Even if a person were guilty of some offense, one should not use a template that includes that offense among a list of ten other offenses. That in effect accuses them of all offenses in the list. That's dishonest and unjust.
On my talk page I was told that in the instance that brought this to my attention, the templates "have been formulated with great attention to precision regarding graduated severity." That is nonsense. "Great attention to precision" doesn't just hit someone with a list of offenses if he may be guilty of one of them; "great attention to precision" does not say material is "inappropriate" when what is thought to be inappropriate is not the material itself but the identity of the person adding it; "great attention to precision" does not suggest that someone is trying to alter search engine rankings when one does not assert that there's some reason to suspect that (let alone hint at what such a reason could be); "great attention to precision" does not does accuse someone of advertising or self-promotion when one does not claim there's some reason to suspect that.
Michael Hardy ( talk) 23:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)
Despite having raised my concerns regarding the use addition of hundreds of links to the Worldcat website at Template talk:Infobox Book, an important question as to why Wikipedia should be used as platform to create hundreds of links direct to the Worldcat website has been ignored, perhaps by those who do not want those links removed. There is no reason why Worldcat should be given special treatment by linking to their site in this way, as we don't do it for any other non-commecial or comercial cataloguing service. It is not appropriate to add these lists on two grounds:
For instance, Wikipedia does not support direct links to the Library of Congress website via a LCCN, even though it is one of the largest book collections in the World. Whether you agree or disagree with the creation of these links, please make your opinions known at Template talk:Infobox Book or at the current discussion at WP:VPP#Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library. -- Gavin Collins ( talk| contribs) 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)
Added a section on bookspam; it occurs often enough that it ought to be mentioned in the guideline. Durova 345 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)
FWIW I'm much happier with Johnuniq's rewrite. — David Eppstein ( talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
A relevant report is at WP:COIN#McGraw-Hill. Two users ( 96.248.91.79 and 198.45.19.50) are busy adding "further reading" sections which amazingly refer to books from a particular publisher. Why wouldn't publishers spam when it's so easy? Johnuniq ( talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)
Another new example of bookspam: Special:Contributions/Ambarsande. I reverted the one from Kissing number problem but there are a lot more. — David Eppstein ( talk) 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Added this section. This is a fairly pervasive problem and a very aggressive form of link-building scheme employed by spammers-- Hu12 ( talk) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Is information concerning a non-profit organization "spam" as anticipated by this guideline? Posit an IRS-approved non-profit having a single article in WP mainspace. Would that be instantly deletable as spam? Would a single article in userspace about such an organization be deletable instantly as spam? In each case posit that the organization has no products of any kind for sale on the page, nor would it ask for funds on the page. Collect ( talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Special:Contributions/71.175.252.2, Special:Contributions/Highspeedrailusa, Special:Contributions/98.111.181.133 -- NE2 01:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Can I remind contributors that this page is for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Spam, and not for reporting or discussing individual cases of spamming. JamesBWatson ( talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
Are references to chambers of commerce, otherwise without notability, allowable as external links? If not, shouldn't they be mentioned here? Student7 ( talk) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)
Please, why is this particular website banned? Most of the users whom abused it were proven to be sock-puppets and have been indefinitely banned, and this site was one of many dozens the users in questions used. However, I personally cannot see how the site itself can be considered 'spam', and it does contain a source of helpful information and evidence-backed cases regarding Satanic ritual abuse. Thank you, Aangman14 ( talk) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Ugh. No offence, but, frankly, yes, I did expect this form of response. Disappointing, yes, but, sadly, not shocking for Wikipedia, I fear... Whom used it as spam? A couple of sockpuppets? And what was it used with? A couple dozen of other websites? The website itself is an excellent source for ritual abuse information; I myself am of the view Wikipedia, or, more specifically, select users with an interest in such topics, is indeed heavily suppressing information concerning valid evidence involving the issue. Now, I understand that people such as you consider it far beneath your notice to consider these matters, but has the thought that those whom were opposed to the site used it as spam in the first place, to get it blocked from Wikipedia? I cannot imagine how the continued blocking of the site could help Wikipedia at all, with the IP Addresses of the abusers indefinitely blocked, and with so few people even knowing of the site's very existence, but I grow weary indeed of debating an issue such as this. I will not embarass myself further by continuing this discussion. Thank you. Aangman14 ( talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)
I just tried the Microsoft's Detecting Online Commercial Intention mentioned in section How to identify spam and spammers, results give “Non-Commercial Intention n%” (percentage). I know we can't put a clear limit but is it possible to get some kind of score range? Or at least from what percentage can we start to consider an article to be advertisement? - Cy21( talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
WP:LTA has been nominated for deletion; discussion here. Johnuniq ( talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)
Some time ago, I created a template, {{
contact info}}
, to cover up contact information that is included within an article nominated for deletion as spam. Now I'm having second thoughts about this template, and I'd like to hear the community's feedback on its existence and its documentation. The template is listed on {{
spam-nav}}
and has been from the day it was created. -- Blanchardb -
Me•
MyEars•
MyMouth- timed
01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)
I would like to challenge my additions to guitarist's pages being considered spam. I have two questions I would like answered. First, why are sentences about Rolling Stone magazine's ranking lists not spam and Gibson.com's ranking lists are? Both are from respected publications in the pop music community. Why is Wikipedia biased toward one and not the other? This appears hypocritical to me. Maybe there's a technicality I am not aware of.
Second, I find it interesting that some references to the Gibson.com Top 50 Guitarists list that I did not put on Wikipedia remain on the site. For instance, on Danny Gatton's page, there is a sentence about his Gibson.com ranking that follows his Rolling Stone ranking. I was not the person who put this here. The other day, I incorrectly added an outside link to the sentence. That was my mistake and it was rightly removed by another editor. However, they didn't remove the original sentence. It remains on the page. So clear this up for me: It's OK for the Gibson.com list references to be posted, just not by me? I don't understand. Please explain. Thank you. Wawzenek (talk) 22:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Wawzenek —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wawzenek ( talk • contribs)
There to be added OFFTOPIC section in wikipedia. If one sends something not directly related with title of page - then he is to be adviced to make a new page. There is no need to ask for creation of new pages. But as for existent pages... Some articles are definitely not very good like "I don't need to read anything", so no need of them. That is question of wikisource, let's see —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
95.133.108.86 (
talk)
20:04, 24 June 2010 (UTC)
Check out this tool at Linkypedia, it is noting all the links to Amazon and rating pages by number of links to them, it could be a great way to fight overlinking to Amazon as a reference in Wikipedia! Sadads ( talk) 16:00, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
I've come across several instances recently where it is clear that editors are adding references to their own work (or their organisation) to articles. I'm not here to report the users, but some examples are Wikiproject1400 ( talk · contribs) - all refs linking were to news releases from the Agricultural Research Service, 83.215.123.233 ( talk · contribs) all to books published by one philosopher and today 118.97.235.139 ( talk · contribs) - adding links to papers published by one scientist. There are many other similar cases that I've come across as well. Currently the bookspam and refspam sections don't really make clear whether these edits are problematic or not; 83.215's obviously are but the other two are more borderline and I think we need to establish a consensus as to how we should deal with edits like these. My personal view as that due to possible COI problems, editors should not add references to their own work as it often appears that even if their edits are made in good faith, that they are here to plug their own work rather than improve the project. We do need to consider that authors are experts in their field and so we should try not to WP:BITE them either. I suggest that we add something to this page (and maybe to the COI guideline) saying that editors should be extremely cautious adding references to their own work and ideally add it to the talk page first. The exception to this would be if an editor is an expert who has added references to many different authors, in which case including their own papers would be ok. Does this sound sensible? Smartse ( talk) 09:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I've rewritten the first sentence of the guideline because I don't think it was updated after the bookspam and refspam sections were added a year ago. This type of spamming is definitely distinct from the other two types. Smartse ( talk) 16:25, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
A discussion is being held at the Village pump (misc) concerning the merits/problems of using FindAGrave. Mass removals have been suggested. You are invited to join in the discussion. Moxy ( talk) 21:47, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
WP:BOOKSPAM is discussed here, so you should be aware that a new proposed guideline for WP:Further reading sections is being developed. Tijfo098 ( talk) 05:20, 30 November 2010 (UTC)
I am here to bitch about the spam filter notice because it made me lose a good addition to an article by not allowing me to return to the edit and fix it, but rather only to return to viewing the article, losing the edit. I tried going back but becuase it was internet not safari the text entered was gone. Daniel Christensen ( talk) 06:00, 21 December 2010 (UTC)
Is there anything in this guideline that I'm missing (or in some other guideline) which address wikilink spamming. If not, should there be? In particular I'm thinking of indiscriminate additions of POV links to "See also" sections, such as here. VernoWhitney ( talk) 15:27, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
Are these links spam or not? [10]
If not then I will re-add them... Modernist ( talk) 13:07, 1 March 2011 (UTC)
LinkSearch reports that
188 pages (mostly articles) are linked to http://*.londontown.com, an online travel guide. One specific contributor,
Gonzo Baggins (
talk ·
contribs), seems to be responsible for a lot of them some of the more recent ones,updated 12:29, 21 March 2011 (UTC) but s/he's generally using it as a poor source rather than as obious spam. I don't want to go bullying someone just because they don't understand
WP:RS but I don't have time right now to review 188 articles. Can someone with a bit more expertise please assess the situation? Thanks. BTW I've left a note for that user so they know about this discussion, and I've invited
Thundernlightning to comment as s/he has been cleaning up those links recently. -
Pointillist (
talk)
10:22, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
First off i have not deleted a large bulk of your contributions. I deleted (actually undid) one edit on the hotels in London section for the main reason I gave you. You added a section for London Hotels that have been in films (not notable for any other reason). The number of hotels used in London is in the 100's and thus an endless list of hotels i believe would add nothing to that page even if you feel the article benefited from this type of in formation. A more fitting place would be in the hotels own page. You chose to add a handful of those large number of hotels and i noticed the weak citation to londontown. I looked at your other edits and noticed a large bulk of your posts have used that website for citation. This raises eyebrows in that its a weak source and associated with affiliate activities. I questioned the large number of links not just on the basis of being a weak (and not original) source but how you came to find those links. For example the first time you posted them a link was in the langham hotels section http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Langham_Hotel%2C_London&action=historysubmit&diff=409785013&oldid=408382780 when you linked to http://www.londontown.com/London/Top_Ten_London_Boutique_Hotels Can I ask how you came to decide they were an authoritative source when the hotels own website gave this information? http://london.langhamhotels.co.uk/info/history_langham_london.htm I found this to be consistent enough across your posts to warranty removing the londontown links. I have not removed your full edits, only the weak citations. I have noted other weak sources such as http://londonhotelsinsight.com, an affiliate hotel website whose articles are written by SEO to embed links to their clients websites. Interestingly one of those using londoninsight for search engine promotion is londontown. For example http://londonhotelsinsight.com/2011/01/19/hotels-fail-to-provide-good-wifi-at-own-peril/. You will see the embedded keyworded link to london hotels is actually an outbound links to londowntown. I do not want to discourage you from adding to wikipedia I would just try and show you how certain links have raised flags and sticking to the authoritative/original sources will be to everyones benefit. Thundernlightning ( talk) 17:11, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
Thundernlightning- I don't want to get into an argument over this, and apologise if my earlier post was confrontational- I was frustrated.
However I do feel that your attitude towards me has been accusatory from the outset, without any real justification. I understand what you are saying about 'flags' being raised, but feel that you have immediately jumped to your own conclusions rather than bring it up for discussion as pointilist has done.
Regarding the film section- I added this because I thought it might be of interest to anyone looking for information on hotels in london, and the hotels I picked I felt were notable as they had been used for significant scenes, not just as 'backdrops'as you say. I also thought that others might add to the list. I would say that this is a matter of opinion whether this section was worth adding or not.
You asked, "can I ask how you came to decide they were an authorative source when the hotels own website gave this information?" (which by the way comes off as very patronising and sounding like an inquisition)
- As I mentioned before, I tend to add information to wikipedia as and when I come across it, and the londontown page was where I found the information. I thought the source was reliable as an authority on the subject, so used it, but will stand corrected if this is not the case. Also, wouldn't citing the official hotel site be classed as a primary source and therefore against wikipedia guidelines?
I can't really comment on what you say about embedded links etc as this is not something I'm familiar with. Once again, I used the londonhotelsinsight link because I found information that I thought might be useful to share. Apologies if this is not the case.
Once again, I don't want to get into an argument, and have only pointed out some points about your comments to try and demonstrate how they can be intimidating to less experienced users such as myself. Gonzo Baggins ( talk) 21:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I did say to you on your talk page that the hotels in london discussion page would be the appropriate place to gather opinions on whether hotels that have been seen in/used for films would be a good edition on that page. I have also corrected you twice about you stating i have deleted large amounts of your postings. I haven't, i have undone just one post. All other changes were to remove inappropriate citation to londontown. I have not even removed all your londontown links, i await others to give their opinions if it amounts to spamming and if the links should stay. The hotels main website is already linked on the example I gave. You seem to be saying that every hotel page should have links citating the information from any website except the source/main website? Im not sure i follow that reasoning. Im not sure the problem here. Londontown is a poor source so simply find more authoritative sources and try not to link to affiliate or seo sites unless they are the sole and strong source. And if you do so try and avoid linking multiple times to that site and the same page on multiple articles. Thundernlightning ( talk) 22:06, 21 March 2011 (UTC)
I have looked further into the links posted by gonzo. On every url of londonhotelsinsight(.com) he has posted there is a link to londontown(.com), always in the side twitter section and sometimes also keyword embedded into the main text under London Hotels for example. I then googled for both sites and indeed these two sites are strongly connected with articles that name and/or credit both sites together. londonhotelinsight is owned by Positive Partnerships Ltd a seo company whose owner blogs on behalf of londontown. I believe all links posted by the user to the 2 sites should be removed and i would like others opinions. Thundernlightning ( talk) 11:01, 22 March 2011 (UTC)
LondonTown.com provides worthwhile overview entries on London streets, especially concerning geographical information, that are well ranked by Google. I wouldn't say a LondonTown.com entry on its own is a sign of notability, but it is a reliable source, as one of a range of references for a London street entry on Wikipedia. It is worthwhile as "further reading" at least. Just my thoughts. — Jonathan Bowen ( talk) 13:07, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Is it possible to blacklist this blog as it is persistently being refspammed through random accounts and IPs on cricket related articles. --- Managerarc talk 14:59, 12 April 2011 (UTC)
This is purely anecdotal, but I constantly come across mention of The Daily Show in biography articles after a guest appears on the show. They are usually similar in style and tone. This may be simple systemic fandom, or an organized effort. Has anyone done a more scientific study to see how prevalent The Daily Show mentions are on Wikipedia?
Television talk show appearances seem barely notable on their own, unless something notable happened or was said. One rarely sees 1950s and 60s Johnny Carson appearances mentioned in Wikipedia bios, for example. For most famous people it would be a tedious exercise to list every single TV, radio and newspaper mention. Green Cardamom ( talk) 20:38, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
How is an external link to an article on domestic violence be considered spam or advertising when it simply makes reference to the story of a particular case? Wmcg ( talk) 03:41, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
This part - "with the purpose of promoting an outside organization". How do we know what the purpose of an edit is, from the editor's point of view? Surely that point is contentious, and if we say an article is spam, we are (by guideline) calling the editor a spammer. There are many editors that have added spam-like content thinking they were adding useful content. Surely we should focus on the effect of the edits and not the intention? What about something like "This page in a nutshell: Spam is the inappropriate addition of links or information to Wikipedia with the effect of promoting an outside organization, individual or idea; it is considered harmful, please do not do it and if you find some, please remove or rewrite the content." ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
Wasn't sure if this is a new topic or an old one: "Spammers Exploiting Wikipedia for Fake Pharma Products" (5/30/2011) -- Wikiwatcher1 ( talk) 19:11, 30 May 2011 (UTC)
In WP:SPAM#Tagging articles prone to spam there are two examples of banners that can be inserted in inappropriate articles, and each banner is accompanied by an explanatory sentence. There is supposed to be a third explanatory sentence saying:
However, this explanatory sentence has become incorporated in the second banner. It should be removed from the second banner so that it stands alone as advice about speedy deletion for inappropriate articles. Dolphin ( t) 08:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)
Hi, I'm new to dealing with the issue of external link promotions. Could someone have a look at this so I can learn where the boundaries lie?
I see a WPian has been removing some entries already, with edit-summaries such as "Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. All you people pedaling writing sites need to fuck off." Hmm: perhaps undignified, but I get the idea. The whole category probably needs monitoring, which I'm willing to do if I know more about it. Thanks. Tony (talk) 13:14, 4 October 2011 (UTC)
I know a method of spamming. It is the following: a spammer sends a message that contains the following: "Please, find x users who hadn't got this message,and send them this message",where x>1. Then there 'd be 1 message,then x+1, x^2+x+1, e.t.c. To prevent it, it ought to be forbidden. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.85.129.78 ( talk) 05:52, 9 June 2011 (UTC)
No, I haven't. Станислав Крымский ( talk) 10:07, 24 January 2012 (UTC)
Section Wikipedia:Spam#Be careful when giving examples briefly discusses examples. I observe in many articles that products are pitched as examples of the concepts explained in the articles. Examples:
I would like to see more explicit guidelines here about when it is appropriate to give product examples. We want to avoid that all vendors look for places where to add their product names as examples.
-- Bikeborg ( talk) 15:34, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
Sure, it is difficult to give very precise and generally applicable guidelines. But that is true for many topics treated here in the Wikipedia namespace. Some more specific guidelines could simplify the life of contributors and reduce edit wars. Should we start by collecting some positive and negatives examples to get a better handle on what the advice should be? -- Bikeborg ( talk) 15:26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)
I have been reading EVERYTHING I can on spam, advertising, and the like policies on Wikipedia. However, I haven't seen a ruling on whether linking to GLAM resources constitutes spamvertising. If the historical materials of an organization (note: my own archival collections represent non-profit, usually educational organizations, but this discussion could be expanded to for-profit organizational archives) reside in an archives or other GLAM institution, then wouldn't the helpfulness of the external link outweigh the spamvertising? Any insight into this issue would be rather appreciated. I wanted to add that I am trying to expand and improve the articles on which I am posting external links to my archive, and trying not to just spam my links around. However, I believe that people should know where the archives of these people/organizations live because they can be valuable research tools; perhaps that need justifies a little link spamming? alifabeta ( talk) 20:48, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
This may not be germane but, how do we know if someone is deliberately acting like a spammer or his actions are based on lack of knowledge about
Wikipedia policies?
What I intend to bring in this discussion is, “how far would WP:AGF be applicable in such cases?”
[if you don't mind, please notify me on my talk page, after responding to my questions. BTW, this is not a decree or anything like that. Thank you.] Brendon is here 19:09, 24 May 2012 (UTC)
How to report link spam, especially if the links are Twitter and Wikia? Thanks. Dede2008 ( talk) 15:54, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
How do I disable the internal ads that keep on bugging me about donating? 189.215.203.123 ( talk) 19:57, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
There is an interesting discussion at WT:External links#Removing links on request where a site owner wants their external links removed from articles because their presence hurts the site's SEO! Comments about the issue at the other page would be welcome. Johnuniq ( talk) 11:12, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
User:Scr206 appears to be an WP:SPA solely concerned with writing about the Pacific Northwest Labor and Civil Rights History Projects and adding links starting with http://depts.washington.edu/labhist/ to wikipedia. Is this SPAM? I thought it was, notifed the user and reverted some of the link additions (but not content additions, which I still think can be merged into something useful), but User:Beyond My Ken differed, reverting a whole bunch of my reversions and other edits. Could someone offer a third opinion please? Stuartyeates ( talk) 20:28, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
How can that be listed with Wikipedia — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric Elam ( talk • contribs) 13:10, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
The project pages Conflict of interest, Wikipedia:Spam, and Wikipedia:User pages provide unclear, contradicting, or no info about what to do with spam on a user page. Please discuss at Wikipedia_talk:Conflict_of_interest#user_page_spam. -- Espoo ( talk) 18:11, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
There's a discussion ongoing at Talk:ALCAT test about whether articles should include mention of vendor-solicited pro-athlete endorsements of the product described in the article. Said endorsements have been published in usually-RS publications, but we have no way to know what inducements or persuasions the athletes received in order to make such statements to the press. We do know that the company directly reaches out to athletes and trainers to promote the product (it's shown prominently on their website). We also know that the WP article was originally used as advertising by shill accounts, though that has largely been corrected now. Comments on how to address such situations would be helpful. LeadSongDog come howl! 15:53, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Does this constitute WP:CITESPAM? Till 05:41, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
I have come across an advertisement on Elance for someone trying to hire someone else to spam Wikipedia: https://www.elance.com/j/wikipedia-contributor-wanted/37646140 I don't know who I need to message to prevent any spam from this person. Is there any way to block the links to 'myathens.tv' and 'mymykonos.tv' to prevent anybody from adding links to them? Kind regards, Matt ( talk) 03:54, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
Together we can make our world a safer place <3 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pamelaness ( talk • contribs) 23:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
How many edits do I have to make before Wikipedia stops forcing me to enter a code every time I post an EL on a talk page? I am (not) Iron Man ( talk) 10:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
Can't find info on reporting abuse from wikipedia.org domain names. I've been getting a lot of recent email spam with @wikipedia.org return addresses, but due to the prevalence of Wikipedia, doing a google search to find where to report spam only turns up wikipedia articles on the subject of spam. - 24.130.65.122 ( talk) 01:06, 14 May 2013 (UTC)
From Cindamuse's comment on the talk page of a blocked editor:
Mere publicity, promotion, and advertising need not reference sales or reviews pertaining to the quality or feasibility of the subject of the article. Simply announcing the existence of a subject prior to notability would be considered promotional and inappropriate. (emphasis added)
I like it. Useful, short, and to the point. davidwr/( talk)/( contribs)/( e-mail) 04:30, 18 May 2013 (UTC)
I'm going back and forth with a couple of other editors that a link to the current home of the website Encyclopedia Dramatica can't appear on the article's sidebar, or, I suppose, anywhere within the article, because it happens to be on the spam blacklist. I feel the spirit of this policy should allow a redirect, since the purpose of linking to a site that is the subject of an article isn't by any stretch of the imagination "spam" (the article has survived [a record?] 24 WP:AFDs), regardless of the rather WP:BURO matter of its existence on the blacklist. Is this something we should explain more explicitly in this policy, or is it already covered in WP:LINKLOVE, as the link obviously serves an encyclopedic purpose? -- Kendrick7 talk 02:59, 29 June 2013 (UTC)
This is just a warning message that a new bot has been designed to seek out blacklisted links and tag the pages containing them with {{
Spam-links}}
.—
cyberpower
ChatOnline
08:38, 25 July 2013 (UTC)
Hello all. I've just started a requested move discussion for Wikipedia:Advertisements, which has some relation to this guideline. The discussion is at Wikipedia talk:Advertisements#Requested move if anyone is interested. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 15:32, 4 August 2013 (UTC)
Are people still using "what links here" when investigating spam? Do you assume "what links here" will show links on user talk pages? There is a question at WT:Flow#What links here and boards (flow) which reminds me that WP:FLOW will replace user talk pages (probably later this year), and that will radically alter how talk pages work. Johnuniq ( talk) 00:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
Can anyone advise what the course of action is for someone spamming links? I reverted several links by User:Buckinghamgate to 'direct hotels . co . uk'. That user has now reapeared as GeorgeThomsonSmith who is now reverting my changes and using redirects to hide the final destination to that website. Thundernlightning ( talk) 12:31, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
LoungeBuddyLucy (
talk ·
contribs) is adding links to
www
I'm on the fence on whether this is WP:REFSPAM or a legitimate attempt to improve the article. TJRC ( talk) 20:37, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
Hi there, thank you for your comment. Though loungebuddy.com was initially only a site for a phone app finding airport lounges, it is now also creating great sources concerning all air travel information. Indeed, all the points that I'm adding references were previously unreferenced, and can be found on the pages from the links. This is a legitimate attempt to improve the article. LoungeBuddyLucy ( talk) 20:48, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
would read better if written "How to not be a spammer".
The existing sentence reads as if it intends to give the reader advice on how to spam correctly (or not spam incorrectly). I got a chuckle out of this, but to increase the legitimacy of the article / not confuse syntax-naïve readers, it might be best to consider a change to the latter example. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.98.209.7 ( talk) 05:00, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
There looks to be a 4th form of Wikipedia spam now, where a Wikipedia page is used as verification as part of an e-mail scam. There is currently an e-mail doing the rounds using the article Liliane Bettencourt as the basis of verifying the subject:
Hello, I, Liliane authenticate this email. You can read about me on: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liliane_Bettencourt I write to you because I intend to give to you a portion of my Net-worth, hoping it would be of help to you and others too. Respond for confirmation. With love, Liliane Bettencourt ---------------------------------------------------------------- This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
There is almost an edit war in progress with multiple contributors adding a message of warning to alert unsuspecting people who may have received the e-mail, however each of these are being quickly removed citing no reliable sources. Some contributors have attempted to invoke WP:Ignore All Rules, but this was rejected as it does not meet WP:GNG or WP:EVENT, this does not seem to fit the norm.
How should scenarios like this be handled? The multiple edits are disruptive, yet I can understand the justification behind them. It does not seem this type of situation is catered for in WP policies. Some discussion here: Talk:Liliane Bettencourt Screech1616 ( talk) 12:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC) Screech1616 ( talk) 12:25, 18 November 2014 (UTC)
I continue to read on Wikipedia only to get the $3.00 spam promotions. Really tired of it. Most of the clowns doing the editing are so anal that if you change anything (even if true), it's removed. The editors are now paranoid. No more spam please! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.60.98.146 ( talk) 20:35, 4 December 2014 (UTC)
The following user accounts have been spamming for a company variously called Ventom Network India, Ventom Media, Ventom International Motion Corp, Ventom India, etc.:
Some of the users have already been blocked. A SPI is probably needed, but thought I should flag it up here too. Thanks, Dai Pritchard ( talk) 15:46, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
Jgzheng ( talk · contribs) / 24.30.12.49 ( talk · contribs)
Specifically :
I reverted a few run-of-the-mill self-promotion ELs today, plugging some undergrad essays (when they can't even spell "Burners-Lee" right they're not that good). Next edit and they're back. As I don't want to be accused of WP:OWN (Catching some flak for that at ANI today) I'd appreciate if a few others could keep an eye on things. Thanks Andy Dingley ( talk) 22:56, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
- jgzheng: the resources are legit published book chapters and put in the right section of book chapters. I would consider as a personal attack to say it is undergrad essay. Wikipedia clearly need editors that need to read other encyclopedia articles otherwise better articles go somewhere else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jgzheng ( talk • contribs) 00:04, 7 March 2015 (UTC)
I have decided to write an essay for the Signpost about the problem I see with certain type of spam. Please leave comments at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Lots_of_articles_about_companies_and_products_are_failing_notability. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 06:50, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
There is a discussion on how to address non-notable awards in pornography articles: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pornography#Mention_of_non-notable_awards_in_articles. We'd appreciate help creating consensus on when and how such awards are mentioned in pornography biographies and related articles. Thank you. -- Ronz ( talk) 16:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
I love the redirect WP:ADMASQ, which User:ukexpat created. However it occurs to me that WP:ADMASK might be an even clearer way to spell it here on the target page, as one of the 3 listed aliases -- with the benefit that "mask" is a real word, easy to remember, and related to the root meaning of an spam article "masking" its intention. Anyone agree? Shawn in Montreal ( talk) 16:41, 31 May 2015 (UTC)
{{
R to section}}
and {{
R from shortcut}}
.
Si Trew (
talk)
06:53, 2 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This help request has been answered. If you need more help, you can , contact the responding user(s) directly on their user talk page, or consider visiting the Teahouse. |
how i cam protect my page from deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by AliAzam150 ( talk • contribs) 13:17, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
In reference to my Signpost OP-ED at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed and the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Wikipedia Signpost/2015-09-02/Special report, where User:Smallbones predicted "There's a new scandal every 3-6 months on related topics" (and here we are) I think we need a new approach. We should start reviewing (purging...) categories about Companies from the spam entries. As I noted, it's not "one in ten", in my experience, based on what fails WP:NCOMPANY, it is more like "Two out three". Again, I spend several hours today, nominated a dozen or so spam entries, and again I am depressed at how little this seem to have changed. There are thousands of entries we need to review, prod and follow up with AfD if needed. Any ideas on how to go about that would be helpful. Pinging editors who indicated an interest in discussing this further: User:GamerPro64, User:KieranTribe, User:Elekhh, User:Maury Markowitz, User:The Banner, User:Brandmeister, User:Blue Riband, User:MER-C, User:Randykitty, User:Staszek Lem, User:DGG. The best I have been able to come out is some paste-in templates that shave at least a little bit from writing out each new PROD/AFD: User:Piotrus/Templates. But we need more . Polish Wikipedia has a built-in "delete this article" link in the left-side "Tools" that would be very helpful to import, for example. (Click, write a rationale, select a WikiProject to notify, and the script will finish the nom, list it, and notify the author). But what we also need is some kind of serious collaboration drive, aimed at reviewing and deleting those entries. Something like a deletionist contest, perhaps... -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:11, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
I agree that the problem is not in tools; the problem is that too much slack is given to businesses and products. Many a time I got frustrated when the Afd-"keepers" vote, like, "keep, much coverage". In fact the whole coverage is PR babble; i.e., what is called "business as usual". And from what I hear, it is easily done by paid-socks.
Therefore I would suggest stricter rules enforcement:
In addition, I didn't check myself right now, but WP:GNG in business-related areas must reflect the fact that it is an order of "business as usual" that every startup generates huge amount of buzz, which should be discounted. Staszek Lem ( talk) 19:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
As well as WP:GNG, articles have to pass the requirement of expressing significance in order to not be speedy deleted under WP:A7. If we see an article on a company/website etc that seems to have plenty of references but does not indicate why it is important then that is arguably sufficient reason to speedily delete. I've just found Soda PDF which seems to be a good example of this (although in this case I opted to PROD it instead). Waggers TALK 09:49, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Ordinary profit making companies (and their executives) are no more than half the problem. Non-profits of various sorts are an equal problem, although they are sometimes less aggressive about it. They do use staff PR people and outside PR agencies to write spammy articles about themselves and their leaders. They too have fallen for some of the schemes of the undeclared paid editors. They too have often gotten away with it because nobody is interested in pursing they deletions. They too use puffery and try to pass off minor mentions as significant references. They too try to insert inappropriate web-site contents: minor officers, trivial activities. And they are even more likely to get away with it because people here tend to be somewhat less hostile. Many of us sympathize more with the purposes of many of these organizations than we do with the those of profit-making business.Given the life-sexperiences of most of us, this is understandable, but it is equaly incompatible with the making of a npov encyclopedia. DGG ( talk ) 22:54, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
Piotrus, sorry I can't be more specific right now in support of any particular proposal but I saw your complaint elsewhere that not a single person agreed with your position with corpspam is a problem. So: I agree, corpspam is a serious problem. I've personally been trying to combat it via the COIN process and I'll probably stay there barring any really fundamental change in Wikipedia processes. I've also made some really concrete suggestions for fighting said spam at User:Doc James/Paid editing. If anybody reading this hasn't seen that yet, it's full of really interesting ideas, some of which are sure non-starters, but some that could be developed. — Brianhe ( talk) 00:22, 13 September 2015 (UTC)
Please see two of my recent proposals at NCOMPANY for how to tighten the requirements on sources (and why): Are trade magazines/portals acceptable? and Companies notable for one event. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:18, 15 September 2015 (UTC)
I know this is a little off-topic, but is there a place to deal with phishing sites on Wikipedia as well? I recently struck out references to a site that had been hijacked to include a phishing page. WP:PHISHING was of no help, as it described a wiki-phishing incident.
Phishing, which is basically just a rogue version of spam, could be a serious problem to readers, so I just wanted to know where I can get referred to deal with phishing sites. epic genius ( talk) 01:55, 4 November 2015 (UTC)