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. |
I removed a link added on Great Dane to http://www.danetalkers.org. This link meets most of the criteria of WP:EL to avoid, and none of the 'should be included' items (it is a social networking site (web forum), non-encylopedic, full of original research, added by members or even owners of the site. Sure they aren't selling very much, but we aren't here to make the web forum grow. Since I removed it 5 times today, I've recieved about 40 email messages from members of the web forum complaining and demanding a response as to why I removed it. Can someone other than me back me up on the article talk page? Thanks! - Trysha ( talk) 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We have tried to contact "Trysha" several times. A response is appreciated and warranted as to why a site that has been linked for a year has suddenly been targeted for removal. This is an educational site, NOT a forum. There is no advertising on this site, strictly educational and helpful information about the Great Dane. Friesianswhisper 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Can you keep an eye on someone who keeps adding his site? I have to go to bed. HaltonRattlesnake ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I warned him and discussed the issue on my talk page, but he has continued to add back the links. It's to some forum or whatever for Google Earth. He only adds posts by a certain user so I'm assuming he's trying to make his posts get more "downloads". It is essentially a link to a Google Earth file, which requires Google Earth (And this is my assumption, I can't even open the file.) I have to go to bed, but if he keeps adding his links could you clean up and warn him again? If I'm in the wrong here please go ahead and let me have it. :) Mrtea (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This user 172.159.184.222 (see contributions [1]) keeps putting the same links back on all the pages to do with Capeverde (see contributions). Half a dozen people keep reverting them but could someone arrange a block of some sort please? -- BozMo talk 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in some of the reversions and there is more than one IP been used - 172.214.80.30 & 172.203.171.80 have placed the same links in May (I reverted those yesterday). I also placed a warning on the one you mentioned yesterday. I certainly see them as spam if only because it's the only contribution made! Given the fact that they are anon IP's I'm not sure how a block would work but I'd be interested in any updates and will happily help. Cheers -- Nigel 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi - fairly new to this so would pefer to do it right as far as I can. I took links that I considered spam from a couple of pages today including Search engine optimization. Then looking at the contribs of the IP I see they contributed (if putting links in is really that) to Corporate identity. Looking at some of the other links on that page I consider them spam - am I wrong? Equally am I right to be very suspicious of IP addresses whose only contribution is links? Thanks & cheers -- Nigel 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A new user is adding links to hyperion. The editing may be in good faith, I'm not sure, and the site's content is borderline with respect to encyclopedic value. Suggestions? JonHarder 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone has been adding links to quotesandpoem.com (linksearch link) to dozens of articles about famous people. The site consists mainly of lists of quotations, with plenty of ads, of course.
This spammer goes beyond most others, though, in using a new account for each edit: to name only a few, CameronJK, LucyK1, LorrieL, LisaJK, RubyJ, LouisJ.
I removed all the links to the site about a month ago, but they are being re-added. I just requested that the site be added to the spam blacklist. Wmahan . 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this is said with a grin or not. On Resume I reverted a link as someone put in a link to a new site but left the original text. Now I see they have put the site in as a new one - does " Note: this is a genuine CV writing site, and not built just for advertising." on the site's front page allow anyone to make a decision on this one? Regards -- Nigel 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed all my pages as Lonympics. I added legitimate pages and you have out of your way to remove every page i have done why are you going after me. This is not fair. You have not many any analysis of pages are fair you did not even state what you were doi ng you just removed every page id id. My pages are useful. Why have you removed them Why do you get pleasure from destroyiong people. Why? I want your phone number tell me who you are why are you doing this. This is not joke. You have no pitty no mercy you are cruel and vindictive, and so no tolerance of other sites that give useful information. Why are you doing this. Why do you take such pleasure from destroying people. Why? You want to destrioy me tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newuser123 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
After a break of a month (for his summer holiday?) Lonympics is back [3] [4] [5] [6] but is now using a geocities address to hide that fact. This is the work of banned Newuser123 who is once again creating single use throwaway usernames simply to add his links [7] [8] [9] [10]. New linksearch for reference. -- PTSE 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Sikh historian has been adding links to www.allaboutsikhs.com to various articles. My guess is that it's an attempt to promote the site, which has ads and an amazon.com store. However, I know almost nothing about the subject so I'm not sure if I should revert the links. Wmahan . 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Mobile Marketing - I realise that in a sense that is what it is all about but there are a lot of external links that look spammy to me - anyone else? Cheers -- Nigel | Talk 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In the last couple of days, an anon using IP addresses 220.226.7.157, 220.226.32.253 and 220.226.46.101 (Provider = Reliance, in India) has been adding links from various subpages of www.tipsmanual.com/How-to-fish-in-salt-water/ and www.tipsmanual.com/improve-child-reading/ to a few articles. All of the pages are loaded with Google ads. I've been reverting, but it seems to me that blacklisting www.tipsmanual.com will be the better solution. Any thoughts? -- Donald Albury( Talk) 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily spam per se, but a company called MyWikiBiz has issued a press release offering a paid-for article writing service for companies. Looks like one to keep a close eye on. Oldelpaso 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Topic split from above Yesterday I made a template (not "legal" by current rules, but maybe it's time to start a debate). Any thought on that as a tool for this kind of thing? -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Elringo has added Atlas.ti, and links to it that seem just PR. I have no idea whether Atlas.ti is notable or not, so for the moment I've placed a warning on it and on his talk page. In the while, everybody's welcome to keep an eye on his contrib list. -- Sergio Ballestrero 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well everyone has been nice to me so far! Delving round Wiki more and more, spam I can often recognise. However I'm interested in the position on articles about companies. I found this as a fully formed new page Osco & Sav-on and I stress I am not suggesting that this is an inappropriate article but I've seen a few that really do seem more corporate ad pages than encyclopaedia articles (I can hunt for more if anyone is interested). Anyone point me towards a policy (I have looked but not really found anything so far) and the opinion of those here would interest me. Thanks and regards -- Nigel ( Talk) 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a subject matter that is getting completely out of hand on Wikipidea at the moment. I do not for one moment condone linkspam or any type of spam but feel that many self appointed wikipedia watchdogs are beginning to miss the whole point of Wikipidea and the foundations of the GNU liscence and the wiki guidelines on which this incredible encyclopedia was built. There are no specific rules set down by ANY software under the GNU licence apart from the fact that it must be FREELY distributed and if developed then SHARED with others. There are at the moment many Wikipedia users who feel that the LAW on external links is SET IN STONE and that if there is any commercial presence on a website then it is not suitable due to the RULES of Wikipedia. I suggest that these users have another look at the Wikipedia GUIDELINES on this matter (guidelines being the operative word).
I have noticed that this project has merely 110 members that if you take a view at their collective contributions to Wikipedia show that they seem to account for more removal of external links than anything else citation needed. Wikipedia has millions of visitors everyday, should it be up to 110 to decide what is Spam and what is not? This scenario reminds me very sadly of a few moments in Mans history that are best forgotten.
What is the answer? Linkspam can obviously not be allowed to continue but neither can the judgment of only a few. Either Wikipedia must now take official control of any editing and remove the GNU licence or come up with a more democratic way of dealing with this issue. I welcome any comments to this note on my talk page kirk ( Talk)7 August
Can others please take a look at the links to carrotjuice.com ([ Linksearch results) and help decide whether it's appropriate or not. An anon IP has re-added them after I deleted a few. Also, many of the other links on juice-related articles seem linkspammy to me too. Thanks. Deli nk 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Definite linkfarming from the User:83.29.* range. carrotjuice.com, pineapplejuice.com, titanicons.com, dobranoc.com, czosnek.com etc. resolve to the same host IP. Delete on sight. Femto 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE:Apparently the linkspammer has returned with a bunch of usernames: JacobJjj ( talk · contribs · logs), Wikistinks ( talk · contribs · logs), Downyourpants ( talk · contribs · logs), Coconutseverywhere ( talk · contribs · logs), BigDaddyFive ( talk · contribs · logs) at least. I think all have been reverted by now. Deli nk 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Restored comment from BrettJones ( talk • contribs)— Please remove the links to my websites from this page. The outsourced employee that added these links to Wikipedia has been permanently relieved of his duties. This link spam problem will not happed again. Thank you, Brett Jones
At United States housing bubble, I removed some links to blogs because they didn't seem especially relevant, and I thought they were probably added by their owners as promotion. A couple of anonymous accounts responded with personal attacks and restored the links.
I'm open to the possibility that I was too hasty in removing the links, and I am not opposed to all blog links, just self-promotional ones. Anyway, I would appreciate a neutral third opinion. Wmahan . 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a new user Joecoolaug ( talk · contribs). I'm alerting to the user because of this comment on his userpage: This is the wikipedia account for joecoolaug inc. More information will be added soon. http://www.freewebs.com is our homepage. His editing interests so far seem to be Nintendos. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of external link section edits by Site400 ( talk · contribs)... don't have a lot of time to go chaseing them today, but from what I saw they were all to the same website. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Kozuch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to their personal site to many Wikipedia articles. The clearest evidence of abuse is that the site is merely a copy of Wikipedia with added advertising: essentially, the links being added to articles just go to a copy of the article with ads! The word "preposterous" comes to mind... — Saxifrage ✎ 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For convenience if they continue, here is a link to the page listing all articles linking to their site: [13]. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
213.165.182.233 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was block on 15 July 2006 for spamming, is at it again. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is a whole genre of sites mass-adding links to interviews with music celebrities. I'm not sure where they get their content, but I started compiling a list here.
There are two especially egregious examples that I haven't removed all the spam for yet:
The second one in particular seems to be using a new anon IP for each edit or two, which makes it difficult to separate the spam from any links that might have been added in good faith. Wmahan . 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Blacklisted aceshowbiz.com. MaxSem 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Found this on Italy - www.worldwide-tax.com/italy/indexitaly.asp -- and have seen similar on other countries pages today - any views? -- Nigel ( Talk) 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a few of them ( linksearch result), probably a spammer. SB_Johnny | talk 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
See linksearch result. This is a commercial wiki... it has good content, but not sure why it needs to be linked to quite as much as it is. SB_Johnny | talk 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created {{ linksearch}} to make linking to Special:Linksearch results easier—no more having to copy and paste.
Usage:
{{linksearch|*.example.com|optional link description goes here}}
Gives you:
Full usage instructions are on the template page. Enjoy! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed up the template. Should work with spaces in the URL, and be properly linked on the secure server now too. Kevin_b_er 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a number of links to [16] and [17] placed in articles by Shermanmonroe ( talk · contribs · count). He then posted this to my talk page. He has re-added the links to a couple of aricles after I posted the {{ spam}} tag on his talk page. Beause he has proteste to me, I'm bringing this back here for other opinions. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Ok, I'll help out with this tommorrow(read: 15-20 hours from now), when I can think well enough to draft a properly reply (if noone else does before then)
The two combined are a bad idea. Also, artitechure is far from 'open', or whatever they mean by that. If you don't order their developer or copratate, it "does not include English Language dataset" It sounds more like crippleware. The link doesn't seem very appropreate in Semantics. Need sleep before I draft a proper sounding reply to Shermanmonroe. Kevin_b_er 07:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After being blocked, Shermanmonroe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back, making the same link I warned him about the first time, and posting this on my talk page after I warned him again. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
www.westlord.com on 41 articles [18]. Pyb 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Very similar range, each IP with only 1 edit. Many of them appear to be like this, and that's way too big of a range to check with some of the tricks I know.
But this one's not in range, and not formatted the same:
The similar IPs are, GOLDENLINES-ADSL with a country code of IL (Israel). And the domain, westlord.com is registered there. Starting to look like spam. I'll gather more diffs if we need to double-check more of them. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This one is quite active at present [25] on a number of pages. Site doesn't seem tooo bad but it's the multiple postings that bug me - anyone? -- Nigel ( Talk) 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many links to marriage dot about.com ( linksearch results), added by a variety of anonymous IPs ( 216.177.251.239 ( talk · contribs), 69.29.234.93 ( talk · contribs), 69.29.221.172 ( talk · contribs), and 207.118.3.133 ( talk · contribs) are the ones I've found so far). The volume and placement of the links seem suspicious, but I don't have time to investigate further right now. Wmahan . 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This anonymous user placed a couple pornography related links into a couple articles and then immediately removed them himself. While the articles don't have the links anymore the history of course still does, which may increase a ranking on a search engine. Could someone more experienced with spam on Wikipedia look into this? Ziggur 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(section reorganised by SB_Johnny | talk 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC), for easy reading)
So what to do about the untravelled road links? They're clearly self-promotion. The author is even keeping them up to date. I'm a bit nevous about removing that many at once though. Not sure its proper. Need more opinions and such. Kevin_b_er 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
When adding a link to a particular user, the most useful way to do it is by using the form {{user|USERNAME}}, which, if you were talking about me would look like this: SB_Johnny ( talk · contribs). That way we can move straight to the talk or contribs (whichever is relevant), without having to go to the userpage and clicking through form there (I.e., don't use the form [[User:SB_Johnny]], which often is even more annoying because it leads to an edit age when the link is red. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you add color to {{user|USERNAME}}?
Animal articles on Wikipedia are rapidly gaining links to ARKive.org. While the organisations aims are admirable, should we be linking so heavily to a site asking for doantions? I tend to remove the links if we have pictures on wikipedia or in the commons and leave it if we don't. What do other people think?-- Peta 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?
For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines ( all links). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link:
I wonder if there's a parallel here with the WP:BLP policy which is applied to biographies of living people... And has recently spawned a Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises proposal?
Thanks/ wangi 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok - I reverted a number of these the other day [26] and placed a spam warning on the user talk page Bblanchard ( talk · contribs) (he deleted but I've commented on it). He is of the opinion it is not spam (his comments are on his talk page). In view of that fact that I was involved in the original deletion I felt I should bring it to this page for other opinions. My view hasn't changed (the fact that other sites are on the pages only means I know what I'll do when I get a minute) - its spam in my mind but I know I shouldn't be judge jury and executioner! -- Nigel ( Talk) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I appologize if my link is considered spam by wiki readers.
Please remove this link as well as the other "Common Software" links. Each of these is a similar spam. I have added Real estate appraisal, Appraisal Management, and Appraisal process to my watchlist. If i notice links on these pages, how do I go about reporting spam?
Bblanchard 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See for yourself on the history of Audio mastering. To me it looks like several competing spammers, but maybe I'm too sensitive? See also User_talk:66.214.253.155 and the contributions of 82.153.8.89 ( talk · contribs), 66.214.253.155 ( talk · contribs), 82.152.202.136 ( talk · contribs), Voy7 ( talk · contribs). -- Han-Kwang 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I made this template and on request of an other user I added a link to the source that I most often use when I add the template to articles. I'm not affiliated with the USDA, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate that that site is linked to so many times (potentially 100s of times) -- Han-Kwang 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
See contributions. The links all seem to go to http://tesla.liketelevison.com ( linksearch) which claims to let you download movies, tv, etc. after you pay and register. Akriasas 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess this isn't spam in a sense but is a list of "eating out places" & "pubs" ok for wiki? If I take it out there will not be a lot left but I'm not sure if it's what I expect? -- Nigel ( Talk) 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This new user, who appears to be the secretary of the Genealogical Society of Ireland has written a couple of articles about the society and its gazette, and already his article Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, taken from the society's website has fallen foul of copyvio. He has also added links to the society website to a number of articles. It seem s like the innocent actions of a newbie, and i have left him a message. What should be done with the articles/links? Lozleader 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting a project to mine http://findarticles.com (a very large archive of magazine articles, may of which are free in full text); I describe the project in a bit more detail here: User:JesseW/findarticles.com. As it will involve adding many external links to the same web domain, I thought I'd mention it here for comments and thoughts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
When possible this should be avoided. In many cases, links to the original articles are available and these are always preferable I think. Second choice if the original link is unavailable is the link to some free archive and third to something like findarticles.com which is a commercial site. I don't know that there's any good reason to add multiple links to that particular site. Pascal.Tesson 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Not spam as such but found this one ( http://iloveahvaz.xlphp.net/) DON'T click without reading the rest! According to McAfee SiteAdvisor - "Our analysis indicates that this site may be designed to trick you into submitting your personal or financial information to online scammers." Thought people should be aware of it. As a ps - how would it be best to "show" such a site in a public forum? Cheers -- Nigel ( Talk) 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed some links from organic light-emitting diode recently, which made a few of the website owners unhappy. One agreed to request that a neutral editor add their link on the talk page, but two other site owners are re-adding their links, even though I said on the talk page that I would not object if the links were approved by a neutral editor not affiliated with a website. Wmahan . 19:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
DavidN2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked before, and is at it again. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also using 65.33.127.33 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks/ wangi 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a few of these out earlier [27]. Observerite ( talk · contribs) - only contributions were these (and in bold!). I took the view it was spam (& still do). However some of the links have been reverted by another editor with the comment that it's a "good guide". Views & thanks -- Nigel ( Talk) 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been reverting this as spam but thought I would get a second opinion. Is the whole thing just an advert for the guys canoe trips or just badly written material? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just leaving so could someone check this guys edits. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this quite files under the heading of 'spam', but these two pages appear to be advertising. I'll let you take the necessary actions. Black-Velvet 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK not sure about this. It's been speedy delete and was removed, it's been prod'ed (by me) and it was removed, it's been blanked & I reverted it. It does get quite a lot of google hits. I was about to AfD it but I really am not sure enough - wiser brains please. The recent edit/improvement is the only contribution of the editor. Thanks -- Nigel ( Talk) 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
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. |
I removed a link added on Great Dane to http://www.danetalkers.org. This link meets most of the criteria of WP:EL to avoid, and none of the 'should be included' items (it is a social networking site (web forum), non-encylopedic, full of original research, added by members or even owners of the site. Sure they aren't selling very much, but we aren't here to make the web forum grow. Since I removed it 5 times today, I've recieved about 40 email messages from members of the web forum complaining and demanding a response as to why I removed it. Can someone other than me back me up on the article talk page? Thanks! - Trysha ( talk) 05:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
We have tried to contact "Trysha" several times. A response is appreciated and warranted as to why a site that has been linked for a year has suddenly been targeted for removal. This is an educational site, NOT a forum. There is no advertising on this site, strictly educational and helpful information about the Great Dane. Friesianswhisper 18:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
Hey everyone. Can you keep an eye on someone who keeps adding his site? I have to go to bed. HaltonRattlesnake ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) I warned him and discussed the issue on my talk page, but he has continued to add back the links. It's to some forum or whatever for Google Earth. He only adds posts by a certain user so I'm assuming he's trying to make his posts get more "downloads". It is essentially a link to a Google Earth file, which requires Google Earth (And this is my assumption, I can't even open the file.) I have to go to bed, but if he keeps adding his links could you clean up and warn him again? If I'm in the wrong here please go ahead and let me have it. :) Mrtea (talk) 09:58, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
This user 172.159.184.222 (see contributions [1]) keeps putting the same links back on all the pages to do with Capeverde (see contributions). Half a dozen people keep reverting them but could someone arrange a block of some sort please? -- BozMo talk 09:54, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been involved in some of the reversions and there is more than one IP been used - 172.214.80.30 & 172.203.171.80 have placed the same links in May (I reverted those yesterday). I also placed a warning on the one you mentioned yesterday. I certainly see them as spam if only because it's the only contribution made! Given the fact that they are anon IP's I'm not sure how a block would work but I'd be interested in any updates and will happily help. Cheers -- Nigel 11:21, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Hi - fairly new to this so would pefer to do it right as far as I can. I took links that I considered spam from a couple of pages today including Search engine optimization. Then looking at the contribs of the IP I see they contributed (if putting links in is really that) to Corporate identity. Looking at some of the other links on that page I consider them spam - am I wrong? Equally am I right to be very suspicious of IP addresses whose only contribution is links? Thanks & cheers -- Nigel 17:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
A new user is adding links to hyperion. The editing may be in good faith, I'm not sure, and the site's content is borderline with respect to encyclopedic value. Suggestions? JonHarder 20:01, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Someone has been adding links to quotesandpoem.com (linksearch link) to dozens of articles about famous people. The site consists mainly of lists of quotations, with plenty of ads, of course.
This spammer goes beyond most others, though, in using a new account for each edit: to name only a few, CameronJK, LucyK1, LorrieL, LisaJK, RubyJ, LouisJ.
I removed all the links to the site about a month ago, but they are being re-added. I just requested that the site be added to the spam blacklist. Wmahan . 06:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Not sure if this is said with a grin or not. On Resume I reverted a link as someone put in a link to a new site but left the original text. Now I see they have put the site in as a new one - does " Note: this is a genuine CV writing site, and not built just for advertising." on the site's front page allow anyone to make a decision on this one? Regards -- Nigel 13:22, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
Why have you removed all my pages as Lonympics. I added legitimate pages and you have out of your way to remove every page i have done why are you going after me. This is not fair. You have not many any analysis of pages are fair you did not even state what you were doi ng you just removed every page id id. My pages are useful. Why have you removed them Why do you get pleasure from destroyiong people. Why? I want your phone number tell me who you are why are you doing this. This is not joke. You have no pitty no mercy you are cruel and vindictive, and so no tolerance of other sites that give useful information. Why are you doing this. Why do you take such pleasure from destroying people. Why? You want to destrioy me tell me why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Newuser123 ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
After a break of a month (for his summer holiday?) Lonympics is back [3] [4] [5] [6] but is now using a geocities address to hide that fact. This is the work of banned Newuser123 who is once again creating single use throwaway usernames simply to add his links [7] [8] [9] [10]. New linksearch for reference. -- PTSE 01:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
User:Sikh historian has been adding links to www.allaboutsikhs.com to various articles. My guess is that it's an attempt to promote the site, which has ads and an amazon.com store. However, I know almost nothing about the subject so I'm not sure if I should revert the links. Wmahan . 04:52, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Mobile Marketing - I realise that in a sense that is what it is all about but there are a lot of external links that look spammy to me - anyone else? Cheers -- Nigel | Talk 08:32, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
In the last couple of days, an anon using IP addresses 220.226.7.157, 220.226.32.253 and 220.226.46.101 (Provider = Reliance, in India) has been adding links from various subpages of www.tipsmanual.com/How-to-fish-in-salt-water/ and www.tipsmanual.com/improve-child-reading/ to a few articles. All of the pages are loaded with Google ads. I've been reverting, but it seems to me that blacklisting www.tipsmanual.com will be the better solution. Any thoughts? -- Donald Albury( Talk) 10:09, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Not necessarily spam per se, but a company called MyWikiBiz has issued a press release offering a paid-for article writing service for companies. Looks like one to keep a close eye on. Oldelpaso 11:44, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
Topic split from above Yesterday I made a template (not "legal" by current rules, but maybe it's time to start a debate). Any thought on that as a tool for this kind of thing? -- SB_Johnny | talk 13:20, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
User:Elringo has added Atlas.ti, and links to it that seem just PR. I have no idea whether Atlas.ti is notable or not, so for the moment I've placed a warning on it and on his talk page. In the while, everybody's welcome to keep an eye on his contrib list. -- Sergio Ballestrero 11:22, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
Well everyone has been nice to me so far! Delving round Wiki more and more, spam I can often recognise. However I'm interested in the position on articles about companies. I found this as a fully formed new page Osco & Sav-on and I stress I am not suggesting that this is an inappropriate article but I've seen a few that really do seem more corporate ad pages than encyclopaedia articles (I can hunt for more if anyone is interested). Anyone point me towards a policy (I have looked but not really found anything so far) and the opinion of those here would interest me. Thanks and regards -- Nigel ( Talk) 08:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a subject matter that is getting completely out of hand on Wikipidea at the moment. I do not for one moment condone linkspam or any type of spam but feel that many self appointed wikipedia watchdogs are beginning to miss the whole point of Wikipidea and the foundations of the GNU liscence and the wiki guidelines on which this incredible encyclopedia was built. There are no specific rules set down by ANY software under the GNU licence apart from the fact that it must be FREELY distributed and if developed then SHARED with others. There are at the moment many Wikipedia users who feel that the LAW on external links is SET IN STONE and that if there is any commercial presence on a website then it is not suitable due to the RULES of Wikipedia. I suggest that these users have another look at the Wikipedia GUIDELINES on this matter (guidelines being the operative word).
I have noticed that this project has merely 110 members that if you take a view at their collective contributions to Wikipedia show that they seem to account for more removal of external links than anything else citation needed. Wikipedia has millions of visitors everyday, should it be up to 110 to decide what is Spam and what is not? This scenario reminds me very sadly of a few moments in Mans history that are best forgotten.
What is the answer? Linkspam can obviously not be allowed to continue but neither can the judgment of only a few. Either Wikipedia must now take official control of any editing and remove the GNU licence or come up with a more democratic way of dealing with this issue. I welcome any comments to this note on my talk page kirk ( Talk)7 August
Can others please take a look at the links to carrotjuice.com ([ Linksearch results) and help decide whether it's appropriate or not. An anon IP has re-added them after I deleted a few. Also, many of the other links on juice-related articles seem linkspammy to me too. Thanks. Deli nk 13:55, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
Definite linkfarming from the User:83.29.* range. carrotjuice.com, pineapplejuice.com, titanicons.com, dobranoc.com, czosnek.com etc. resolve to the same host IP. Delete on sight. Femto 19:16, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
UPDATE:Apparently the linkspammer has returned with a bunch of usernames: JacobJjj ( talk · contribs · logs), Wikistinks ( talk · contribs · logs), Downyourpants ( talk · contribs · logs), Coconutseverywhere ( talk · contribs · logs), BigDaddyFive ( talk · contribs · logs) at least. I think all have been reverted by now. Deli nk 21:11, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Restored comment from BrettJones ( talk • contribs)— Please remove the links to my websites from this page. The outsourced employee that added these links to Wikipedia has been permanently relieved of his duties. This link spam problem will not happed again. Thank you, Brett Jones
At United States housing bubble, I removed some links to blogs because they didn't seem especially relevant, and I thought they were probably added by their owners as promotion. A couple of anonymous accounts responded with personal attacks and restored the links.
I'm open to the possibility that I was too hasty in removing the links, and I am not opposed to all blog links, just self-promotional ones. Anyway, I would appreciate a neutral third opinion. Wmahan . 22:01, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
This is a new user Joecoolaug ( talk · contribs). I'm alerting to the user because of this comment on his userpage: This is the wikipedia account for joecoolaug inc. More information will be added soon. http://www.freewebs.com is our homepage. His editing interests so far seem to be Nintendos. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 02:50, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm seeing a lot of external link section edits by Site400 ( talk · contribs)... don't have a lot of time to go chaseing them today, but from what I saw they were all to the same website. -- SB_Johnny | talk 18:06, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Kozuch ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is adding links to their personal site to many Wikipedia articles. The clearest evidence of abuse is that the site is merely a copy of Wikipedia with added advertising: essentially, the links being added to articles just go to a copy of the article with ads! The word "preposterous" comes to mind... — Saxifrage ✎ 04:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
For convenience if they continue, here is a link to the page listing all articles linking to their site: [13]. — Saxifrage ✎ 05:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
213.165.182.233 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log), who was block on 15 July 2006 for spamming, is at it again. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 11:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
It seems there is a whole genre of sites mass-adding links to interviews with music celebrities. I'm not sure where they get their content, but I started compiling a list here.
There are two especially egregious examples that I haven't removed all the spam for yet:
The second one in particular seems to be using a new anon IP for each edit or two, which makes it difficult to separate the spam from any links that might have been added in good faith. Wmahan . 05:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Blacklisted aceshowbiz.com. MaxSem 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Found this on Italy - www.worldwide-tax.com/italy/indexitaly.asp -- and have seen similar on other countries pages today - any views? -- Nigel ( Talk) 11:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
There's a few of them ( linksearch result), probably a spammer. SB_Johnny | talk 13:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
See linksearch result. This is a commercial wiki... it has good content, but not sure why it needs to be linked to quite as much as it is. SB_Johnny | talk 13:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I've created {{ linksearch}} to make linking to Special:Linksearch results easier—no more having to copy and paste.
Usage:
{{linksearch|*.example.com|optional link description goes here}}
Gives you:
Full usage instructions are on the template page. Enjoy! — Saxifrage ✎ 17:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I believe I've fixed up the template. Should work with spaces in the URL, and be properly linked on the secure server now too. Kevin_b_er 22:48, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I reverted a number of links to [16] and [17] placed in articles by Shermanmonroe ( talk · contribs · count). He then posted this to my talk page. He has re-added the links to a couple of aricles after I posted the {{ spam}} tag on his talk page. Beause he has proteste to me, I'm bringing this back here for other opinions. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 03:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC) Ok, I'll help out with this tommorrow(read: 15-20 hours from now), when I can think well enough to draft a properly reply (if noone else does before then)
The two combined are a bad idea. Also, artitechure is far from 'open', or whatever they mean by that. If you don't order their developer or copratate, it "does not include English Language dataset" It sounds more like crippleware. The link doesn't seem very appropreate in Semantics. Need sleep before I draft a proper sounding reply to Shermanmonroe. Kevin_b_er 07:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
After being blocked, Shermanmonroe ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log) is back, making the same link I warned him about the first time, and posting this on my talk page after I warned him again. -- Donald Albury( Talk) 08:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
www.westlord.com on 41 articles [18]. Pyb 12:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Very similar range, each IP with only 1 edit. Many of them appear to be like this, and that's way too big of a range to check with some of the tricks I know.
But this one's not in range, and not formatted the same:
The similar IPs are, GOLDENLINES-ADSL with a country code of IL (Israel). And the domain, westlord.com is registered there. Starting to look like spam. I'll gather more diffs if we need to double-check more of them. Kevin_b_er 05:46, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This one is quite active at present [25] on a number of pages. Site doesn't seem tooo bad but it's the multiple postings that bug me - anyone? -- Nigel ( Talk) 08:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
There are many links to marriage dot about.com ( linksearch results), added by a variety of anonymous IPs ( 216.177.251.239 ( talk · contribs), 69.29.234.93 ( talk · contribs), 69.29.221.172 ( talk · contribs), and 207.118.3.133 ( talk · contribs) are the ones I've found so far). The volume and placement of the links seem suspicious, but I don't have time to investigate further right now. Wmahan . 21:00, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
This anonymous user placed a couple pornography related links into a couple articles and then immediately removed them himself. While the articles don't have the links anymore the history of course still does, which may increase a ranking on a search engine. Could someone more experienced with spam on Wikipedia look into this? Ziggur 21:15, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
(section reorganised by SB_Johnny | talk 18:13, 15 August 2006 (UTC), for easy reading)
So what to do about the untravelled road links? They're clearly self-promotion. The author is even keeping them up to date. I'm a bit nevous about removing that many at once though. Not sure its proper. Need more opinions and such. Kevin_b_er 03:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
When adding a link to a particular user, the most useful way to do it is by using the form {{user|USERNAME}}, which, if you were talking about me would look like this: SB_Johnny ( talk · contribs). That way we can move straight to the talk or contribs (whichever is relevant), without having to go to the userpage and clicking through form there (I.e., don't use the form [[User:SB_Johnny]], which often is even more annoying because it leads to an edit age when the link is red. -- SB_Johnny | talk 14:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you add color to {{user|USERNAME}}?
Animal articles on Wikipedia are rapidly gaining links to ARKive.org. While the organisations aims are admirable, should we be linking so heavily to a site asking for doantions? I tend to remove the links if we have pictures on wikipedia or in the commons and leave it if we don't. What do other people think?-- Peta 02:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
What does everyone think about linking to websites which contain customer opinions?
For example consider http://www.airlinequality.com/ which contains passenger opinions on airlines ( all links). I beleive such a site doesn't meet any of WP:ELs "when to link" guidelines (for #4 it's hard to consider it neutral & accurate) and hits against some of the recommendations on when not to link:
I wonder if there's a parallel here with the WP:BLP policy which is applied to biographies of living people... And has recently spawned a Wikipedia:Articles about ongoing enterprises proposal?
Thanks/ wangi 21:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
Ok - I reverted a number of these the other day [26] and placed a spam warning on the user talk page Bblanchard ( talk · contribs) (he deleted but I've commented on it). He is of the opinion it is not spam (his comments are on his talk page). In view of that fact that I was involved in the original deletion I felt I should bring it to this page for other opinions. My view hasn't changed (the fact that other sites are on the pages only means I know what I'll do when I get a minute) - its spam in my mind but I know I shouldn't be judge jury and executioner! -- Nigel ( Talk) 11:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for your feedback. I appologize if my link is considered spam by wiki readers.
Please remove this link as well as the other "Common Software" links. Each of these is a similar spam. I have added Real estate appraisal, Appraisal Management, and Appraisal process to my watchlist. If i notice links on these pages, how do I go about reporting spam?
Bblanchard 14:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
See for yourself on the history of Audio mastering. To me it looks like several competing spammers, but maybe I'm too sensitive? See also User_talk:66.214.253.155 and the contributions of 82.153.8.89 ( talk · contribs), 66.214.253.155 ( talk · contribs), 82.152.202.136 ( talk · contribs), Voy7 ( talk · contribs). -- Han-Kwang 00:25, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I made this template and on request of an other user I added a link to the source that I most often use when I add the template to articles. I'm not affiliated with the USDA, but I'm not sure whether it's appropriate that that site is linked to so many times (potentially 100s of times) -- Han-Kwang 00:41, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
See contributions. The links all seem to go to http://tesla.liketelevison.com ( linksearch) which claims to let you download movies, tv, etc. after you pay and register. Akriasas 04:51, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
I guess this isn't spam in a sense but is a list of "eating out places" & "pubs" ok for wiki? If I take it out there will not be a lot left but I'm not sure if it's what I expect? -- Nigel ( Talk) 16:52, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
This new user, who appears to be the secretary of the Genealogical Society of Ireland has written a couple of articles about the society and its gazette, and already his article Genealogy & Heraldry Bill, 2006, taken from the society's website has fallen foul of copyvio. He has also added links to the society website to a number of articles. It seem s like the innocent actions of a newbie, and i have left him a message. What should be done with the articles/links? Lozleader 08:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm starting a project to mine http://findarticles.com (a very large archive of magazine articles, may of which are free in full text); I describe the project in a bit more detail here: User:JesseW/findarticles.com. As it will involve adding many external links to the same web domain, I thought I'd mention it here for comments and thoughts. JesseW, the juggling janitor 07:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
When possible this should be avoided. In many cases, links to the original articles are available and these are always preferable I think. Second choice if the original link is unavailable is the link to some free archive and third to something like findarticles.com which is a commercial site. I don't know that there's any good reason to add multiple links to that particular site. Pascal.Tesson 10:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
Not spam as such but found this one ( http://iloveahvaz.xlphp.net/) DON'T click without reading the rest! According to McAfee SiteAdvisor - "Our analysis indicates that this site may be designed to trick you into submitting your personal or financial information to online scammers." Thought people should be aware of it. As a ps - how would it be best to "show" such a site in a public forum? Cheers -- Nigel ( Talk) 11:28, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
I removed some links from organic light-emitting diode recently, which made a few of the website owners unhappy. One agreed to request that a neutral editor add their link on the talk page, but two other site owners are re-adding their links, even though I said on the talk page that I would not object if the links were approved by a neutral editor not affiliated with a website. Wmahan . 19:36, 27 August 2006 (UTC)
DavidN2 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) has been blocked before, and is at it again. -- Donald Albury 11:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Also using 65.33.127.33 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log). Thanks/ wangi 12:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
I took a few of these out earlier [27]. Observerite ( talk · contribs) - only contributions were these (and in bold!). I took the view it was spam (& still do). However some of the links have been reverted by another editor with the comment that it's a "good guide". Views & thanks -- Nigel ( Talk) 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been reverting this as spam but thought I would get a second opinion. Is the whole thing just an advert for the guys canoe trips or just badly written material? Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:36, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm just leaving so could someone check this guys edits. Thanks. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if this quite files under the heading of 'spam', but these two pages appear to be advertising. I'll let you take the necessary actions. Black-Velvet 11:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
OK not sure about this. It's been speedy delete and was removed, it's been prod'ed (by me) and it was removed, it's been blanked & I reverted it. It does get quite a lot of google hits. I was about to AfD it but I really am not sure enough - wiser brains please. The recent edit/improvement is the only contribution of the editor. Thanks -- Nigel ( Talk) 17:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)