Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Jan & Feb

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive This is an archive of inactive discussions. Please do not edit it. If you wish to revitalize an old topic, bring it up on the active talk page.

everything2.com

I came across the article on Everything2 and noticed that rather a lot of articles appear to have external links to everything2.com. According to this [1] there are nearly 800 such links, including links deep into forums (see Heavy metal umlaut). The site has an Alexa rank of >12,000 (i.e. slightly outside the threshold per [{WP:WEB]], and WP seems to be one of the major sites linking in. It looks to me as if this is linkspamming and search engine optimisation. The site is in Wikipedia because the site is in Wikipedia! - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 09:40, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

E2 is a well known wiki. Personally, I used it before I knew about Wikipedia. --GraemeL (talk) 14:07, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at some, many are useless links as they link to poor unreferenced material. The use of E2 as an actual reference should be strongly discouraged, and I would support removing most links to E2 content.--nixie 16:12, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree. Remove them when they point to poor material, not because they are spam. --GraemeL (talk) 16:16, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
E2 was a popular somewhat wiki-like site just before Wikipedia started gathering momentum. Quite a few editors here - myself among them - started out there and moved to here as we got more dissatisfied with E2 and Wikipedia got better. I think the high number of links into E2 pages is a historical artifact of editors here coming from there and that many of these links predate the rise in standards at Wikipedia. No need to see a conspiracy. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 17:46, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to further note that when an article on here started out as an article on Everything2, as some did, linking to the original is the right thing to do. —Matthew Brown (T:C) 17:47, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I confirm what Morven said above. -- Perfecto  18:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

24SevenOffice (engaged in a promotional compaign, excessive linking and edit wars)

I bring to your attention this entry : 24SevenOffice. Its creator has admitted that he is an employee of the compagny, the problem is that he is the only one who is making the changes. a What links here show that he has been putting a link of his article everywhere, lists, other articles, categories, everything remotely relevant. It seems also that there is apparently an edit war going on between 24SevenOffice and NetSuite Inc. which is a competitor (see the history), he has even posted prices for his software there, I have deleted this information now. For me this user has a clear agenda, he is engaged in the promotion of his compagny and not in bringing NPOV information. He has survived a vote for deletion while there has been a majority of votes for, he has rewriten the article now, but the entry is still clearly an advert (in its spirit) for me from a compagny which seeks visibility thanks to WP. I don't think that WP is a place for this kind of activity. What do you people think ? --Khalid hassani 14:37, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this should be stopped. I don't want to get into a raging edit war, however. As the first article has survived AfD, we need to have a clear strategy and and clearly stated grounds for deleting links. Looking at the first article in What links here for 24SevenOffice, Electronic commerce, I see that 24SevenOffice and NetSuite Inc. are the only links under the Software heading. As the article is about "electronic commerce, e-commerce or ecommerce consists primarily of the distributing, buying, selling, marketing, and servicing of products or services over electronic systems such as the Internet and other computer networks", I think we can argue that suppliers of software for that market segment are not essential to the article (although that sounds weak to me, as the article lists companies that provide the services and presumably use software from somewhere). Another issue is market share. If these companies dominate the market, there is a strong argument for keeping the links. If they are minor players, they shouldn't be in the article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 15:55, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have added links to the 24SevenOffice article in lists and article where it is relevant. If you think it is not relevant then please remove it if you have arguments for removal.

Your edit war in regards to NetSuite is incorrect. I did not add the section about 24SevenOffice in the NetSuite article. Please check facts (see history) before making such claims. That section was actually written by a user who is a consultant (or at least in some way related to) for NetSuite.

I do not see how the 24SevenOffice article is different from articles such as Gmail, Salesforce.com, Zimbra and others alike.

As I have stated in my profile I do work for 24SevenOffice. My edits has in my view been objective and based on facts. If you feel there are POV issues then please make edits to correct them. I have no itentions of creating subjective advertising on WP.

--Sleepyhead 15:51, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Your edit war in regards to NetSuite is incorrect. I did not add the section about 24SevenOffice in the NetSuite article, ok, sorry for that then, but I have noticed that you have edited the article after this introduction and you didn't remove this information which doesn't help you case in my opinion, I have been misleaded as many would have been.
I do not see how the 24SevenOffice article is different from articles such as Gmail, Salesforce.com, Zimbra and others alike. This need to be checked but my first impression is that I don't have the impression that these articles are being actively promoted by someone working for Google, salesforces.com or Zimbra as the editors seem to be from different backgrounds. I don't see a clear desir of promotion there contrary to your entry. As I told you in you talk page, I have nothing personal against you and I perfectly understand your desir to promote the company you work for, but I see a dangerous pattern here for WP, if we allow you to do what you are doing, we will ses more and more stuff like this here, the more and more WP's popularity grows. --Khalid hassani 16:47, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I don't see any problems with the article either. I did remove an external link to an employee's blog. Apart from that, the article and its incoming links look fine to me.--GraemeL (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I will say that the problem for me here is a meta problem. I believe the guy who has created and who defend this article has a clear agenda seeking visibility for his company thanks to WP even if his links are relevant. Wee need to know if this is allowed in WP or no. Well, If the majority of WP users and editors accept this, then its fine with me, I can't go against the tide. But then we sould write a clear policy for this, and every company should be allowed here as everyone should be treated on an equal footing even small companies, we can't just accept some companies and reject others. But I confess that this site will more look like a Yellow Page rather than an Encylopedia. --Khalid hassani 16:18, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]


I do see problems with it, for a start 8m NOK turnover is about $1m, which is a very small business for such a very large article. I don't believe this bunch meets WP:CORP. It was nominated for deletion before and despite only one keep was not deleted. The tone of the article is "avertorial". The difference between this tiny company and GMail or salesforce.com is obvious to everyone, I think, but as a hint check out NYSE:CRM (salesforce.com) - their market capitalisation is well over $4bn. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 16:17, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unofficial userbox

Sheesh! It only took six hours after I finished that thing for it to show up here. :) -- Dalbury(Talk) 20:30, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Internal link spam template for user talk pages?

Recently I recieved some VfD voter canvassing on my talk page, which apparently is a form of internal spamming. I actually do not object to the concept of informing potentially interested parties of a VfD. But I also think an optional banner template for user talk pages, stating that such canvassing is unwelcome, might be of interest to some. If there is not already one, perhaps something like:

File:SpamInACan.jpg
I do not welcome unsolicited bulk-messages asking me to participate in various Wikipedia votes.
However, you may inform me about votes on articles I contributed to, or Wikiprojects in which I participate.

But better written, with appropriate internal links and highlights. I didn't want to just make a template without input from an appropriate group, and some kind of confirmation that it is a good idea. — Eoghanacht talk 21:38, 5 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

template needed

we need a spam-section template, so we can apply it to just a certain section of an article prone to spam, and not the whole thing.--Urthogie 14:57, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You can apply {{Cleanup-spam}} to just a certain section as well. Thank you for using it! -- Perfecto  22:01, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well the problem is that the content of that template doesn't fit the section only. I would like one that says this section has spam in it, not this article.--Urthogie 22:06, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Done. -- Perfecto  22:50, 7 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Where could I find it..?--Urthogie 12:29, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh sorry. I restored "or section" on the tag so it can serve your purpose. -- Perfecto  17:30, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
K I guess that works, I was thinkin more along the lines of a seperate template for external links, which seems to be the spam target most the time on the spammed articles I deal with, with the other sections almost never being spammed.--Urthogie 19:07, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Urthogie. Caravaca 07:06, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions

This is just the project I've been looking for. :) I have a few questions:

  1. Does anybody know about any future plans regarding rel="nofollow"? I know it was used at one time, but no longer is. I'd like to propose using it only for links on Talk: pages, so that questionable links can be moved off the main page to the talk page for further discussion, allowing us to adhere to WP:BITE without worrying about helping the spammers in the process. (eg. for iffy links that may be vanity/spam, or may be good-faith newbie edits, it's best to discuss the links to see if others think the link might be useful)
  2. Is it okay to put {{cleanup-spam}} on the talk page to address very likely future cases of linkspam? Or is there another tag to use? I and some other editors have VoIP covered pretty well, but mesothelioma seems like it's attracting more than its fair share of ongoing spam.
  3. I'd like comments on Price engine and Online shopping directories. They should probably be merged, but beyond that, I don't know whether they will ever be very much more than a spam-magnet, and I've pondered putting them up for AfD or removing the "external links" section solely for that reason. Is there any precedent for either of those actions? --Interiot 09:56, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My $0.02: merge is good, an AfD will probably fail as this is a notable class of website (e.g. Kelkoo, Pricerunner etc.) - JzG 21:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • (1) With Jimbo's position on it, I doubt it will return. (2) Do what fits you. (3) I've cleaned Osd and I'll merge Pe to Osd shortly. Thanks for helping out! --Perfecto 03:23, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IP address to watch

68.3.28.140 (talk · contribs) keeps trying to add external links for city guides to certain cities. All edits from the IP address have been in the 'External links' section of a city article. It looks like all have been caught and reverted, but this user is persistant, and has added themiamibeachguide.com to the Miami, Florida article five times, and the Miami Beach, Florida article once. He's hit several other cities, as well. -- Dalbury(Talk) 10:51, 8 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Add it to GraemeL's list. --Perfecto 03:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a tricky one

Rate Your Music has over 400 internal links ([2]), over 600 links to the site from Wikipedia ([3]), about 1.2% of all its inbound links ([4]), an Alexa rank of 15,067 ([5]), whihc is high but still outside the 10k cited in WP:WEB, WP is one of the leading sites linking in according to Alexa ([6]), several and probably quite a lot (it will take a very long time to check if it's considered worth doing!) of the internal links were added by Mike Garcia (talk · contribs), a prolific contributor to music-related articles; the site is routinely linked fron the "professional reviews" section of the Album infobox, but these are tnot professional reviews, it's a free-to-edit site. And the traffic has about doubled in the last few weeks, I'm a bit concerned that this might be related to Wikipedia. It will take some detective work, though. Allmusic.com by contrast has an Alexa ranking of 1000, and Wikipedia is not on the first page of sites linking in, according to Alexa ([7], [8]) - allmusic has around twice the total links that rateyourmusic does ([9]) but does have many more from WP (which is hardly surprising since it's linked from AfD debates on bands as a measure of notability). So the infobox is granting parity with a site where parity may not be valid. I sincerely hope this is not linkspam, because it will take a heck of a lot of undoing if it is! - JzG 21:55, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remove it from the infobox, using your argument. Or send the site to AfD. --Perfecto 17:57, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, it's going to take a while I think. - 14:56, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
No. Take it off the infobox -> no more links. --Perfecto 03:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

List of websites

Should I AfD again it per WP:ISNOT a web directory? - JzG 10:14, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shh keep this spambait. I watch it to catch spam articles. --Perfecto 17:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see your fiendish plan. AfDd a couple myself, as you might have noticed, so I buy this argument :-) - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 14:55, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Slanoue Contributions

I assume that this person User:Slanoue, who created the article The TV MegaSite, is the same Suzanne Lanoue mentioned in the article. I've just blocked them (their 2nd block) for spamming. Will need watching when they come back. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:24, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

AfD it, I'd say. Alexa ranking is 84,433 and was added by its creator. - Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] AfD? 15:01, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
She replied to my email. (I initiated the first block.) I requested that she post her response to my email on her talk page. Yes, JzG, The TV MegaSite is AfD material. --Perfecto 03:16, 16 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Jaffer

Jaffer (talk • contribs • page moves • block user • block log) is a case I'm not sure how to handle. He's quite upfront about what he wants to do, in his words: "adding video clips that are legal to articles. I have been using a site owned by my family called evtv1.com"(from his post on the Wikipedia:New_user_log#Jaffer. He says he is a long time professional in the area of "historical videos and historical footage". His reason for only using evtv1.com is: "Adding links to video is tricky because you need to know if the rights allow for such linking. That is why I have stayed with evtv1.com links because I know the rights disposition." His additions follow a number of the warning flags for linkspamming: #1, #2, #3, #6, #8, in this addition to Ellis Island #8 is doubtful - the selling is just ads, and #6 and #1 are both explainable via his stated (and apparently good-faith) goals. #2 and #3 arn't, but may be newbie mistakes. I'm not sure wheather to revert, or not. Further input, thoughts, greatly requested. JesseW, the juggling janitor 08:49, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

See also User talk:CambridgeBayWeather#Link Spam (both headings), User talk:216.159.242.201 and 216.159.242.201 Contributions. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:27, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More discussion at Wikipedia:Village pump (assistance)#Is this spam?. I think the links should be removed. - EurekaLott 22:21, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just FYI, I've made a quick reply there. Mrtea (talk) 05:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've exchanged a couple of emails with the user. He still feels that his links are useful, but does see that they can be perceived as spam. I suggested that he post to either relevant Wikiprojects, or to article talk pages and let the regular contributors there decide on his links. He seems willing to follow that advice. --GraemeL (talk) 14:14, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Template Tagging

If you look at Wikipedia:Requests for adminship/Can't sleep, clown will eat me, under the oppose section you will see that User:Masssiveego feels the tag does not explain things clearly. I feel that in the case he was referring to, User talk:Pammyfiend, that the spammer was reacting more to User:android79 than not understanding the original warning. I've asked User:Masssiveego for comments and wondered what anybody else thought. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 04:12, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where the link is has not been cited. The template has no first warning written anywhere in it. It does not explain the exactly what the spam is. Aka, selling stuff. Leaving the user in question rather confused. --Masssiveego 04:18, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

McDonalds fancruft /spamming mess

Take a look at 67.108.194.102 (talk · contribs). I reverted an edit at Atlanta, Georgia as linkspam, and then started looking at the user's history. What I see as link spam has been well embedded in the Mayor McCheese article and listed as a reference for Chicken McNuggets. I thought I would get other reactions before I start tearing apart the Mayor McCheese article. -- Dalbury(Talk) 17:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking opinions

Seeking opinions from experienced editors on the contributions of User:NuWeb (talk). The user has made six edits; of these, the four that are not on Talk pages each consist entirely of the addition of external links to two websites: www.NuWeb.co.uk and www.funshed.com. --Lph 18:18, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like linkspam to me. funshed.com has zero Google backward links, and NuWeb with not many backward links. And, these sites can't be truly relevant to that many different topics. Seems they're just using Wikipedia to advertise their websites. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:25, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The linkspam has been removed. --Aude (talk | contribs) 18:28, 18 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Raising policy and raising awareness

Good news: Many articles are now the first result for Google queries. Bad news: Promoting a site and gaining web traffic is becoming just a "edit"-click away. Seeing IP addresses pop by, add their link, disappear, come back when the referral traffic stop and add their link again, is becoming unbearable.

  1. Is link-spamming as disruptive as blatant vandalism, copyright violations and creating vanity articles? Link spamming is takes less clicks than the last two.
  2. Jdavidb said, "...it may not be completely against Wikipedia policy to link to your own site in a relevant article...." Do you disagree? Should we raise Wikipedia:Vanity and Wikipedia:Autobiography higher to include adding external links?

If you say Yes, then how can we educate the public about this? One idea I have is asking Wikipedia to add a "linkspam"-related message on the bottom message of the editing box. --Perfecto 19:26, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sportsecyclopedia.com

User:Alakazam has been adding numerous links to www.sportsecyclopedia.com in each baseball team article, basketball team, and who knows what's next. This user isn't new to Wikipedia, nor looks like he/she has been spamming before. Also, the site has a decent Alexa ranking (143,743), so not sure it quite fits the definition of spam. But the mass addition of links to so many articles raises a red flag. If anything, it might belong as a reference, but not a link. --Aude (talk | contribs) 20:03, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've replied in Talk:Basketball and Talk:Baseball. --Perfecto 20:37, 20 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Fanlistings

On Wikipedia talk:External links#Fanlistings, I asked for comments as to whether there is ever a conceivable time that a fanlisting is an appropriate external link. Feedback there, here, or on my talk page would be appreciated.

If I hear nothing, I'm likely to go attempt to expunge any fanlistings I can track down. As near as I can tell, they never provide information. The only reason someone would put them here would be to attract traffic to the fanlisting, I think. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 19:49, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I assume you mean these sites which are merely lists of people who self-identify as fans of "whatever"? I can't see how they're ever encyclopedic. They don't provide any information. Frankly, I don't even see the appeal of them. —Wrathchild (talk) 20:03, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that's the kind of sites I meant. I've never understood what the appeal or purpose was, either. Which was why I wanted to ask around so someone could say, "Oh, no, all these fanlistings have detailed episode summaries (or whatever) that you've missed, jdavidb!" If such be the case, which I doubt. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 20:41, 31 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:69.234.231.238

User:69.234.231.238 has recently added a bunch of external links mainly to one site which I won't name here, some of which are blatant affilliate links, e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=JDate&oldid=37730501 and http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=EBay&oldid=37730251 , others link to more innocuous, but not particularly original content; the bunch of edits taken as a whole (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=69.234.231.238) smacks of an SEO operation. I've now deleted all the links from this user regardless of content. Ianb 22:13, 1 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How come, Ianb, you didn't tag then with {{spam}}? I highly recommend this step whenever you mass-revert the linkspam of someone. --Perfecto 02:16, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
ah, will do next time, thanks for the tip. Ianb 07:00, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

how to block spammer?

a user has now been given spam1, spam2, and spam3 message on userpage after repeated daily spams.

User talk:132.198.165.245

if he spams again, how do i get him blocked? the block pages only seem to apply to "vandalism". Zzzzz 18:10, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Run to an admin and he or she can give {{spam4}}. The fastest wiki way to hail one is a very short note at WP:ANI. Another wiki way is to message any admin you might recognize in Special:Recentchanges. Thanks for your help combatting spam. --Perfecto 18:28, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The IP seems to be a young person who is missing the point. A friendly explanation replying to the note at Talk:Zombie will usually suffice. Can you reply? Invite the IP to create an account, too. --Perfecto 18:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:156.34.85.241

FYI, while editing Roosevelt Campobello International Park I noticed a user at IP User:156.34.85.241 (contributions) seems to have placed a questionably relevant link to http://www.nblighthouses.com/ on a few dozen articles. I suppose there could also be similar spammings using a different IP address. I do not have time right now to revert these myself. — Eoghanacht talk 21:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My guess is that it's a user enthusiastically telling us about their own "almost-relevant-but-not-very-notable-site" because they don't know anything about Wikipedia policies. It doesn't look malicious to me. I suggest the initial tactic should be: contact them, be nice, explain "notability", and perhaps they might even remove the links themselves. Caravaca 07:02, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second Opinion

See here. The links all go to www.cmt.com. So are they spam or not? My feeling is that CMT is a valid site (as per IMDB) and the editor has made quite a few proper edits. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 00:58, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't look like spam to me. CMT = Country Music Television and it's a large information site for people that way inclined. It makes sense to link Wikipedia articles about country music singers to that site. But thanks for your vigilance! Caravaca 06:43, 6 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Turkish spam

The above IP addresses appear to be inserting links to the same web sites (mostly just the same one) on anything turkish related. Every edit by the first user over the last month has to be insert a link. the latter IP has inserted the same link, but not as often. Many of the insertions are on talk pages, sometimes on articles that have no main page, sometimes just a link, sometimes surrounded by padding which isn't related to the talk page.

What I've done to date: warned with spam/spam3. Speedied the talk pages that were orphans. Reverted all articles (and am doing the same for talk pages, including the padding - I was a little wary of reverting talk pages, but as someone replied to me at the villiage pump, link spam is link spam.) I don't know if any other IP address are doing the same thing. Does this all seem okay? MartinRe 22:31, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your work on this MartinRe. I'm in agreement with your method. Reviewing his edits they seem borderline vandalism rather than just spamming. Monkeyman 22:45, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cheers. Added two more IP addresses inserting the same link. I did review the edits before starting, but anything that wasn't a link seemed to be padding (is that what you mean by being borderlink vandalism?) So, even assuming good faith at the beginnbing, by the end of the edits, I thought it was clear enough to be confident reverting all of the edit that included a link, and not just the link itself. MartinRe 23:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added another IP address with the same actions (rewrote all vandal form) User is also recreating orphan talk pages that were previously deleted. Bar watching the pages, reverting, and adding to WP:AIV again and again, what else can be done? MartinRe 18:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi MartinRe. You can ask a meta sysop to add his spam link to the site-wide spam blacklist referenced here under External Link spamming. Monkeyman 18:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hiya, thank for that info, I thought I had read something like that, but couldn't find where. MartinRe 18:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for that info, it's good to know. For the moment, I'll see if the IP blocks have any effect, but it's a relief to know there's something else if that fails. I don't really want to add the site without checking with someone who speaks turkish what the advertised site is about. MartinRe 18:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam only needs a few hours

At 2006-02-11 05:39:22, somebody added useless fanlisting linkspam to the Siryn article [10]. This was reverted less than ten hours later, at 2006-02-11 15:10:03. Unfortunately, during that time, Google picked it up, so now this link has affected PageRank, at least for a while.

Sad. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 16:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If only we could convince google not to take wikipedia links in to account. ;) --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 16:39, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nah, we don't want that. What we need to do is convince them to create some kind of artificially intelligent PageRank calculator that does take Wikipedia links into account but knows which links are linkspam and ignores them. :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 2006-02-16 17:05:05
I don't want to know how you found this out. That's sad, too. :P --Perfecto 21:10, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I'm slowly attempting to eradicate every fanlisting link on Wikipedia. I google for "fanlisting site:wikipedia.org", select some random pages, and start chopping. I think I've found maybe one that had some reason for hanging around, and it was because the site was more than a fanlisting. I'm still waiting for someone to get mad at me for deleting their link and attempt to make a case that Wikipedia should list fanlistings. I've asked in several places and nobody seemed to disagree. Anyway, I just happened to hit that page, and it didn't seem to have a fanlisting link in it, so I checked Google's cache and realized that it had already been removed. Thankfully the linkspam was caught promptly in this case. Now we just need to get rid of the other 543 instances. Jdavidb (talk • contribs) 03:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What to do?

i just noticed the following articles all mostly written by the same user:

edits like this [11] and this one look pretty bad. What's the next step? EricR 21:24, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If they don't meet the criteria in Wikipedia:Notability (companies and corporations) you can nominate them for AfD. -- Donald Albury (Dalbury)(Talk) 22:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see quite a few red flags with this guy. His user page says only "More about me at JE Hochman & Associates - Internet Marketing". That website proudly displays the tagline: "Online business promotion since 1994". My gut feeling is that he's getting paid to place these articles in Wikipedia, something that should probably be ruled as improper. It's nice to have the content but these read like sales brochures. How about rewriting them and toning down the corporate-speak? Monkeyman 23:29, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
True, and several of them need aggressive cleanup, but the ones I've looked at are genuinely major players and meet WP:CORP, at least one has already survived VfD. Tricky. Just zis  Guy, you know? [T]/[C] 23:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this advice about AFDing Corporate Vanity should go on the front page somewhere too. Page spam may not be as bad as link spam for messing up real pages but it gives the link spammers a target inside wikipediea to link to which in turn can link to corporate website. A link to a wikipedia article is less likely to be cleaned up by RCpatrollers and spam fighters. Orangutan 19:40, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yoo Hoo - If you have concerns you could talk to me, not about me

Guys, you need to evaluate the articles, not the author. I do my best to contribute content that meets Wikipedia guidelines. My personal history is really irrelevant. Do you want to delete the Congressional Medal of Honor bio I wrote for Robert H. McCard? Do you want to delete my contributions to the Clam chowder article? You have no idea why I or any other user makes a contribution, so don't even try to evaluate motives.

Three of the above articles were recently nominated for AfD. Two have a preponderance of keeps, and one is on the fence. I think your strategy to persecute my contributions has thus far been rejected by the community.

I can very easily hide my identity. Instead, I choose to be open and identify myself. It seems very unfair that you would cite my employment as a reason that I shouldn't be allowed to participate in Wikipedia. I've made more than 500 contributions, never been warned for spam, and never had an article deleted.

I'll say it again - focus on the content, not the author. If a company wants to contribute material to the public domain via Wikipedia, such as a picture that is a helpful addition to an article, what's wrong with that? Yes, there may some minor publicity benefit, but that's incidental, and you are free to delete any pictures or material that you think is is superfluous, or you can replace them with something better. Jehochman 19:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

May I ask, are you being paid to edit wikipedia? --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 19:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's good policy never to answer pointless questions. I don't understand the point of your question. How would you verify my answer, and what difference would it make? Edits are evaluated on their merits, not their motivations. Jehochman 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree that it is a pointless question. But first, I'd like to apologise if you took my question to be suggesting your edits are bad faith. I completely agree that edits should be evaluated on their merits, and that a user's motivation is irrelevent.
But, in the intrests of transparancy, it would be useful to know if your edits are "sponsered" and who by. That way we can say for sure your edits are neutral. As for verification, I don't need any. I'll assume, should you decide to answer, that you are telling the truth.
If you are offended by the question, I apologise and shall withdraw it. --JiFish(Talk/Contrib) 22:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
All my edits are my own. Full story on your talk page. Jehochman 05:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Jehochman. Let me be the first to say that you are taking this too personally. Having your articles listed on AfD does not mean that people do not like your character or your contributions. It only means that something looked a little suspicious and we as a community wanted to inspect it a little closer. That's all, there's no conspiracy here. Monkeyman 19:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can accept that. Next time something looks suspicious, I suggest that people ask the author for clarification before jumping to conclusions. The chap right above you seems to have some doubts about my character, though. He's asking me a "When did you stop beating your wife" style question. Jehochman 21:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, I can understand your sensitivity about this--can you understand how much crap gets depositied in Wikipedia every day and how much work it is holding back the tide? I think you could be less hostile about the fact that occasionally there might be a false positive. But I think the question is a fair one--if you identify yourself as an "internet marketer," and "internet marketers" are behind the tide of spam, and we have only your assurances that even though there might be some benefit to your clients, it's incidental, it's not some kind of extreme leap of logic to inquire as to whether you are acting in good faith. I'm not saying you're guilty of anything, I'm just saying responding to a routine AfD with claims of "ad hominem" and "persecution" seems a little defensive. I'm sure most people here were blissfully unaware of your existence before this came up and had no desire to persecute you. rodii 21:57, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I understand how much craps gets deposited in Wikipedia, becuse I've been helping to delete tons of link spam. There are three open AfD's. It looks like two articles will be kept, and one will be merged. I am satisfied with that result, so thank you all for your comments, and let's get back to doing something productive. Jehochman 22:21, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jehochman, i was the one who brought up the companies in question so maybe i should explain myself. I ran across Argox in the Barcode printer page. That page has Argox listed in a "Bar Code Printer Manufacturers" section, and an image of one of their products w/ the caption "Photo by Argox" linking to their website. There were a few other pages that followed the same form: portable data terminal,Label printer,barcode reader and Fixed assets management. i don't know why an article on a product needs to have a list of links to manufacturers, but having multiple references just seems strange--and i took it to be spam.

I don't know what to do with those articles. Are they ok as is? should i delete the whole "manufactures" section or remove the link from the image caption? The images are BSD style license so does the website link in the image caption have to stay? EricR 01:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for asking, EricR. If you think lists of manufacturers look strange or are redundant, we can delete them. Many technology articles do list manufacturers. Barcode printer has a fairly accurate list of the major printer manufacturers, and not much linkspam at the moment. (Want to see an out of control list? Take a look at VoIP.)
We should keep pictures because they are useful to people who would like a free picture to use on their web site. Businesses should be encouraged to donate photos to Wikipedia, and it's not unreasonable for them to receive a citation as the source. If you think it would be more appropriate to remove citation links from the picture captions and bury them on the photo page itself, that should satisfy any citation requirement of the license.
I am all in favor of cleaning up spam. I've made a lot of edits. Of course one person's ham can be another person's spam, so if there are any concerns, let's fix things. Jehochman 01:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Jan_%26_Feb&oldid=1146370815"