Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam

Archives
	2005 Archive; 2006 Archive Jan & Feb; 2006 Archive Mar & Apr; 2006 Archive May & Jun; 2006 Archive Jul; 2006 Archive Aug;

Shortcut

[[:|WT:WPSPAM]]

ZipCodeStats.com

Kinda busy at the moment - any thoughts on this? Special:Contributions/61.246.151.237 --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 03:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been cleaned up - thanks --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, if anyone has questions or comments about ZipCodeStats.com or how it will be contributing to the Wikipedia please feel free to contact me directly, since I am the guy who created it and I have control over how we will be contributing to the Wikipedia. We have no intention of Spamming the Wikipedia, we just intend on contributing information to the Wikipedia that we have data for. That would be the ~50K US cities and towns in our database. We may also create data for ZIP Codes if it seams appropriate. Just a little about ZipCodeStats.com… It is a free/non-commercial information site (and that is not expected to change!) that gathers information from various government departments, integrates that data, and represents it in a “human” digestible form. We currently have enough data that if you printed out our site, it would circle the earth 1.5 times (and it is growing). I DO run Google ads on the site out of respect to Google, since I use there maps at no cost to me (plus who knows, it might someday cover the cost of the servers). Hope this helps clear everything up – thanks! Also if you would like to find out more about me, you can go to my site vanvleit.com --Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information, and links don't even contribute to the actual content. Placing your site in 50000 articles sure would fall under my definition of spamming, and it would be quite a promotional gain for you. Just don't. Femto 11:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should only contribute relavant "unique" content (if we have it) to relavant pages/area, and should not post links to the External Links area. Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would we accept their content on the relevant pages, rather than just links there? It seems like a great way for someone to keep up the information in the Wikipedia. I agree that we shouldn't have a link to zipcodestats.com on all the pages that have to do with that zip code. Anca 18:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Their terms of service expressively prohibit derivative works and redistribution, large-scale citation of their database would not be compatible with Wikipedia's license. In any case, if some particular data is needed in the articles, it's always preferable to directly cite primary sources such as governmental census bureaus (WP:RS). Femto 20:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There we go then. If we can't use their content, and we can point users at the primary data, there's no reason to point to ZipCodeStats.com. Anca 21:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

US Census only goes to 2000, zipcodestats spans from 1969 - 2006 (though most of it is not public yet). As the author of zipcodestats, if I add some helpful information to the Wikipedia...that is my desision. I have 4 million pages of the stuff. Lets not get spammophobic about this eather...otherwise the core concept behind the wikipedia will be lost. Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A few comments:

I honestly appreciate your desire to help Wikipedia. If you do choose to contribute content rather than links, and you have support for the idea, it would be welcome.
The specific issue of adding zip codes to city articles has already been discussed, and so far, rejected; see Ram-Man's talk page. As you probably know, zip code divisions generally don't correspond to city boundaries.
You aren't the first editor with no significant edit history wanting to add links in the name of the "core concept behind the wikipedia". However, there's a consensus that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.
I just some removed some earlier mass-adding of the links by 61.246.41.130 (talk · contribs) and Rdplindia (talk · contribs), since there isn't any consensus in favor of the links yet. Wmahan . 23:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wmahan, I think "rejected" is bit of a strong term for what I read...busy is probably a better term:

"I had planned to eventually add zip codes to the articles automatically. Perhaps some day I will. But nothing is to stop others from adding information in the meantime." --Ram-Man's talk page

...though thanks for pointing out the Ram-Man's talk...that was very helpful. I just went there, read the talk...and posted my two cents worth and hopefully helped a little. The issue is more one of ambiguity across ZIP Code Tabulation Areas (ZCTA), US Postal ZIP Codes, city boundaries, and MSA boundaries. I understand the issues all to well believe me...go the ZipCodeStats and look up any city or town and you will see what I mean...this is a tiny issue in comparison to others that I have had to wrestle with on that project...this is sort of one of my areas of expertise now. And I have already done the work that Ram-Man said he may not get around to till "2010ish". -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additonally, I was the one who added the "ZIP Codes" with proper referancing to Los Angeles and that was deleted by Wmahan as a "spam link"(61.246.41.130 (talk · contribs)), I just forgot to login...I think this is contributing to the confussion on this...sorry, my bad. So let me be clear that I am looking to add the ZIP Codes for the cities NOT external links. -- Vanvleit ^(talk) 13:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where2golf.com query

Hi All. I took some links placed to this site out the other day but the poster has asked if she can place them again. I've made my point as I see it promoting the particular website (& being the only contribution) [1] - user - [email protected] (talk · contribs). Any one care to comment (&/or to talk page). Thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 10:51, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think you're right, and it looks like someone else already backed you up on the talk page. Wmahan . 00:16, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks all - I felt I was right but as she appealed it was worth a check. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 06:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

atspace / awardspace travel spam

Links go to subdomains hosted at atspace.com, atspace.us, awardspace.info, awardspace.us.

Targets include Lake Tahoe, Holden Beach, North Carolina, Costa Rica, Big Bear Lake, Great Bear Lake, The Poconos.

Femto 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Second opinon (Solomon Key)

Can I get a second opinion on an external link? Another editor to the article The Solomon Key and I went a couple of rounds of revert-the-spam. He then posted a cordial message on my talk page asking for clarification. After my response, he has "massively improved" the page, and would like to re-add it. To be honest, I'm not sure excalty what changed, but since he's really been polite, I'd like to ask for a second person to review the site out of fairness. The conversation and the link are here. Thanks! Kuru ^talk 03:24, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with your analysis. It is basically a syndicated Google news search for Dan Brown with a whole pile of adverts added. The whole thing seems to be promotion for a poker site. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 03:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've had a number of link adders try to make "deals" with me (e.g., "if I do this, can we keep the link"?) I tend to believe that the more someone cares about the inclusion of a link to their site, the less likely it is that it's appropriate. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 03:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Jamie. It's becoming almost expected now that whenever I revert spam, I'll get a message on my talk page a)asking for clarification, b) explaining just how wonderful the link is, c) whipping out their credentials and trying to intimidate me, d)crying "well what about the other links, they're the same!, or e) all of the above. Spam is spam. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 12:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll share a bit of a fun one. Founds loads of spam in tourist resort type pages in my area. Cleared plenty and left messages. Got one from a reg user "asking for clarification" so quoted [WP:EL] & [WP:SPAM] and asked if he had any specific concerns to let me know tho nothing he had done was apprently affected. Then wondered about his edit record ..... I'll come back to you if I can't sort it myself (but if he hadn't mailed me I would not have noticed!). Enjoy the weekend --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:26, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank y'all very much for the feedback. I didn't really think there was much to it, but since they were at least somewhat cordial, I wanted to get some more eyes on it. It's usually not a problem when I get the really confrontational types... :) Kuru ^talk; 00:05, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

orcmagazine

I discovered 48 links to this online magazine; about 30 were Orc-related, and the remaining 20 were to this link on "Googling your race." I deleted some of the Orc-related ones and all of the "Google your race" ones. Most of them were added weeks or months ago, but it's something to be on the lookout for if someone decides to attempt to reintroduce them. I haven't deleted all of the links in Orc-related articles; I figure it at least makes sense to have a link in Orc, since the site is focused on Orcs and may be notable in the...um....Orc-appreciation community. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 06:25, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think I still see these as quite spammy. I use a HOSTS file and quite a bit of stuff does not come up on the page so draw your own conclusions from that! Secondly is this ""Play Orc" specializes in sexy pictures for the discerning Orc male. It's packed with erotic illustrations of the most attractive Orc maidens and non-Orc slave girls from every corner of the Orc empire. "Play Orc" also contains thought-provoking articles that no one reads." (I can't believe I just quoted that) really necessary to orc appreciation. Anyone thinks I'm wrong I'll happily step back but it is spammy to me - 1 or 2 links just maybe, 20 odd?? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:58, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see these have been tidied a bit. I've just taken some dupe ones out too. Nigel ^(Talk) 15:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Neopets

Someone might like to take a look at links for www.neopets.com. There is definately some spam linking going on for this site. Some of it is just over-enthusiasm, but I've also reverted examples like this. Its fan-dom territory so removing them is likely to be a bumpy ride, however we shouldn't have a couple of hundred links to this site. -- Solipsist 09:43, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Links to private railway site - further opinions please

Reviewing tourism links after finding quite rich veins of spam I came across links to this Lynton and Barnstaple railway railway site. I also looked at links to other similar local organisations such as Dartmoor railway & South Devon railway & West Somerset railway. My view is that Wiki would be well served by one or two external links to this site with the remainder of the pages having relevant internal wiki links to pages that are available rather than more than 30 as it stands.

The person I was in touch with has said that they are reluctant to instantly remove all those links at the behest of just a single wikipedian. I would appreciate opinions on this and will place a note on the talk page to let the person (Lynbarn (talk · contribs)) know of my posting. Thanks & regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 15:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nigel et al. One way to clear this issue may be to create an article specifically for the current L&BR Company, and include wikilinks to that new article in the transclusion, rather than the external link which seems to be the cause of the majority of reported links, and which I have used to link the different articles related to historical and current aspects of the railway. There is already an article related to the L&BR Trust, a registered charity, which is a separate - although closely linked - legal entity. regards, Lynbarn 17:16, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the above. Thirty external links to a commercial site looks like spamlinking to me...I think 29 of the articles should just have internal links to the L&BR article and that article can have the single external link to the commercial site. Brian 14:55, 7 September 2006 (UTC)btball[reply]

Technically, this link is to a charitable, community-based, non-profit site, rather than a commercial link, but I have, as I suggested above, created a new article - Lynton and Barnstaple Railway Company Limited - to which the transcluded link, in Perchance it is not dead but sleepeth now connects. This has reduced the number of apparent spam links to less then nine, and I will remove others as time permits. I trust this action will meet with your approval, and this matter can now therefore be considered closed. regards, Lynbarn 20:02, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

just three links remain. Lynbarn 13:15, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the current situation is certainly an improvement. The article itself could use some more sources in order to pass WP:V, and a bit of a tone-down (seems to read somewhat as an advertisement currently), however. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 15:28, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Birth certificate spam (UK)

Just been chasing this link [2]. Kept appearing from different IP addresses - only one post from each. Cleared for now but if anyone feels like keeping an eye? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm I've removed some of these from different IPs also. Being put in one at a time all over the UK. Definitely one to keep an eye on. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Currently trying to get it blocked but still active - cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:55, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Userpage spam

Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely tolerant of links on userpages, as is the community. However this user and this user (which I found through this search) are not interested in editing Wikipedia. I saw this discussed somewhere recently but can't find where it was. What is the policy for deleting this spam? -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 17:39, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A bit controversial, but I blanked User:Phenter. Given the recent activities of MfD, the page would probably get deleted quite unanimously, and there's no need to clutter the mfd pages I feel. Kevin_b_er 19:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dispute getting personal

I have a disagreement that is getting unpleasantly personal. It is a followup on Organic light-emitting diode discussed above. You can read what has been going on on Talk:Organic light-emitting diode and User talk:Alexander Kelin. (Also check the page history). I think I am no longer able to make cool judgements now. Does anyone think I have said anything that could be interpreted as a personal attack or that is unreasonable? Han-Kwang 14:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have reverted the talk page to put back in the blanked section - important I feel so that anyone can read what is said. I am reluctant to revert the user talk page although I see there is content deleted here too. My own view would be that you have said nothing offensive or inflamatory. It seems that you have come accros a user who is intent on a particular agenda which for me is outside my understanding of Wiki. However my experience here is inadequate to advise on what should be done next - sorry --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've left a message on his talk page. This looks like a typical borderline spammer: he didn't come to Wikipedia to promote his site, but now that he's here he's got his ego all wrapped up in whether it's in the article or not. It's unfortunate, because the purely commercial spammers tend to just be weaselly about it, not emotional. — Saxifrage ✎ 19:22, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As one of the people he attacked, I agree. It appears that he is an expert on the subject, and it would be unfortunate if he stopped contributing because he perceived opposition to his link a personal attack. Perhaps I'm not impartial either, but I thought Han-Kwang did a fine job of not being drawn in by personal attacks. Wmahan . 19:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reminder for comments

I know that some people have quite a bit on their plates however could I ask if anyone would like to comment on the links mnetioned above (Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Links to private railway site - further opinions please) and Lynbarn's propsed solution to them. I would be quite happy with this solution but as I brought it here it would seem better if someone else's comments were added - thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:37, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Problem on Koi

I've reverted the same spam link, cheapkoi.co.uk, on Koi three times in the past 24 hours, and it is back again. Would someone else mind looking at it. -- Donald Albury 12:33, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And the same anon also keeps reinserting a link to Gnarls Barkley Tour Dates in Gnarls Barkley. It's odd, just those two sites, but the anon is persistent. -- Donald Albury 12:37, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Different anon doing the Gnarls one now - I've reverted it but there are quite a few links that are less relevant in my opinion. However I would not look for tour dates on wiki anyway. The Koi I consider commercial (the name including the word "cheap" does it for me!). I'll clear it now and keep an eye too when I'm on. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:59, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, two different IP ranges. It was the pairing of Koi and Gnarls from both ranges that made me say it was the same anon. Might be home and work connections. Maybe I'll check whois. Persistent, whoever it is. -- Donald Albury 14:00, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yep! Both ranges assigned to RIPE Network Coordination Centre in Amsterdam. -- Donald Albury 14:04, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Noticed that afterwards - varied tastes at least! I'll watch both I think - --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:29, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They have commented on the talk page and I have politely warned them (already had 2 proper warnings) --Nigel ^(Talk) 14:32, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another "survey"...

See Special:Contributions/Spawn_Man. I though I saw this sort of thing discussed somewhere, but I forget where. --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 19:30, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam on Brazilian wax

I posted this on the Helpdesk, but someone suggested I post it here. I'm not sure if this is actually the right place, the problem isn't ELs being posted to a bunch of different pages, I just want some guidance as to whether or not the links are appropriate.

A bunch of new links were just added to the Brazilian wax article. I've read the EL policy but I'm not absolutely sure if some of them are linkspam. Could an editor experienced with this stuff go take a look at them? I don't think they're all linkspam, but I think some may be. Thanks. Anchoress 17:47, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Took the (to me) very obvious spam one out - not sure about the others tho (& yes feel free to post this sort of thing here - even better - join us) 8-)! --Nigel ^(Talk) 20:32, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! And if/when I get a better feel for what's appropriate, I'd be happy to. Anchoress 20:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam or not spam?

I'm not sure if this is the right place to ask, but here I go. http://www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com/ looks to me like a spam-website, it's currently linked in 16 articles, and I've seen anons adding the site regularly here and there to the external links section. The site also has quite some information tho (some stolen from Wikipedia without GFDL notices), so I'd like to get a second opinion before I remove all links to that site. --Conti|✉ 17:18, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, spam. This site exists to get eyeballs and mouse clicks on the ads. What really makes it bad is that people seem to be somewhat aggressive about putting this site into many of the external links sections of articles that I watch - I delete these links at least once every other day. But, that is not really the only reason to remove the site. We are not a web directory - and there are no real compelling reasons to list it from the external links guidelines and several reasons not to. If you wanna find images of animals, go to google, that's a better place to look (oh, wait, they are trying to improve page rank i bet) - Trysha ^(talk) 17:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - i've removed them all - Trysha ^(talk) 18:05, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! --Conti|✉ 18:16, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As a person who visits this site regularly i can say that it is a great one. most of the animals sites use a lot of pop ups and a lot more ads at their site. this site is much more organized than most of the sites ive seen and it sure has a lot of data!! After Ive seen what you have written i entered into the site and searched for wikipedia and i discovered that everytime there is an article of wikipedia there is a direct link to the definition in which it was taken from. you could do whatever you want but i believe that claiming this site to be spam and inefficient is wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.0.187.97 (talk • contribs) .

Heh. The same anon who said this added a similar site to an article: http://www.islands-n-beaches.com. Maybe there are even more sites like these around here? --Conti|✉ 23:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the site from 13 articles. --Conti|✉ 23:54, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A linkspammer confession

User:Croclover is now blocked indefinitely, but before he departed he left this which gives a small insight into a linkspammers motives. -- I@n 07:41, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sad, yes (and thanks for letting us know) - but not disheartening. We have tools on our side - Special:Linksearch, the blacklist on meta, and most importantly: time. Inappropriate links will be found, and will eventually be taken care of. Ultimately, any success spammers have here will be quite short-lived. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 13:18, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But he is right though. The google rank will have increased even once those links have been deleted. But it's not that we're too stupid to understand that as he suggests. Simply it's a byproduct of Wikipedia's choice of universal rights of editing. Until the day (which I believe will come) where we have some basic editing restrictions this will go on and we can at best hope to limit the phenomenon. Actually what would be great is to try to have Google decrease the page rank of anything listed on our blacklist. Pascal.Tesson 15:11, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If there is ever a consensus for using rel="nofollow" in links, that should essentially solve the problem with no need to restrict edits. It's already enabled for the other language wikis and all pages not in the main article namespace. Wmahan . 19:40, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice to see that discussion. I was unaware of it. I wonder whether this is an issue that should eventually be brought up again. I mean the keep majority was fairly slim and a lot has happened since March 2005 (which is when that vote took place as far as I understand). I think people in this project can attest to the fact that linkspammers are a time-consuming annoyance for Wikipedia editors and comments such as Croclover's would certainly be evidence that many spammers would realize (at least in the long run) that they cannot gain much by targeting Wikipedia. Pascal.Tesson 00:42, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't PageRank dynamic; ie. if the link that makes a site rise is removed, wouldn't that make the link target's PageRank drop? --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 00:28, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its just Universe Daily. Remove his spam and report to AIV. Reference Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily. Kevin_b_er 07:49, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible "heads up" page

Firedog. Came across this one. Valid corp page as far as I can see but contained an awful lot of links. I've pruned some but there is even the company phone number too. Worth watching as you pass maybe. Regards --Nigel ^(Talk) 18:57, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion to prevent linkspam

Here's an idea to compromise between the freely-editable nature of WP and the desire to prevent linkspam: Allow unregistered users to edit, so long as their edits do not involve adding external links, which are the least important part of editing. Unregistered newbies could still edit to their heart's content, just not add links.

If that needs to go one step further, we could restrict link-adding to accounts older than, say, 30 days, and which have, say, 30 edits under their belt. -MichaelBluejay 23:22, 13 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nice idea, although that would probably be very problematic in terms of implementation. Pascal.Tesson 00:36, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Shouldn't actually be that difficut. The edit script simply needs to scan for a http:// string that didn't appear in the previous version and then check who's editing. The general programming on this site is pretty impressive, this idea should be a piece of cake. The real roadblock wouldn't be technical, it would be whether WP really wants to go in that direction. -MichaelBluejay 04:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible objections:

Everything on Wikipedia should (in theory) be cited. Removing the ability to add links could severely limit the ability to cite sources along with new information, or to add sources for existing claims lacking citations.
Although I agree that the implementation should be straightforward for the most part, it would be tricky in some cases. Anons probably wouldn't be able to correct typos in existing links (since to MediaWiki, that would look like adding links). Allowing anons to restore links previously removed (for example, by vandalism) might also be an obstacle.
When possible, Wikipedia tries not to make anonymous users second-class citizens. After all, they make up a significant majority of visitors.

I've wondered if it would be possible to combine this idea with the rel="nofollow" thing I mentioned above. In other words, links added by new and unregistered users would be included, but marked not to be used for search engine rankings. I think the problem with that idea is there's no good way of allowing established editors to mark a link as approved, so that it is used by search engines. Wmahan . 06:05, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

dog food.

So, the sheer number of links on Dog food annoys me, but I can sort of see the reason that they are there. Any other anti-spammers have thoughts on this page? - Trysha ^(talk) 19:19, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good call - cleaned it a bit (might not have got all of it) - thanks. Stick around and help? Cheers --Nigel ^(Talk) 20:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just wanted a second set of eyes, i've been around forever - i just don't talk much :) (most of my edits are vandal and spam reverts) - Trysha ^(talk) 20:22, 14 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Webcrawlers

Do web search engines search through history pages eg. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MaxNetwork&diff=prev&oldid=74475668 ? -- I@n 01:51, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. History pages have this tag:

The noindex prevents search engines from indexing the page, and nofollow prevents the engines from following the links in the page. See robots.txt#HTML meta tags for robots. In the example you gave, what the spammer did was simply a waste of time. Wmahan . 06:31, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I'm quite new to all of this and am finding it quite fascinating - heaps to learn. You guys are doing a great job BTW. -- I@n 08:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

4288 enhancement

Please support [bug 4288 http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=4288]. It is for generalized tagging and may help with your project. --Gbleem 14:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see how that would directly help prevent spam. Even if a certain version of an article is tagged as "not spammed", new spam would still be shown in the most recent version. The bug doesn't seem relevant to anti-spam efforts unless it's implemented as part of the 2006 proposed approval for anonymous edits or similar. Wmahan . 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone else watch this

I have Italian grammar on my watchlist, and a persistent anon has been removing relevant links, and adding a spam link in their stead. The user is clever, in that s/he will make several edits from different IPs in order to circumvent the "Rollback" button from removing the added link. I seem to be the only one watching this article, and would appreciate a little help, especially since I'll be taking a wiki sabbatical for personal reasons. (The other choice is semi-protection, which I'd rather not do.) Thanks all! Mindmatrix 23:16, 15 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On my watchlist now. As it appears the spammer is inserting the same link repeatedly (but from different IPs), this may qualify for the blacklist. I'll keep an eye on the article and if the spamming persists, I'll submit the blacklist request. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:38, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

External links on town pages

I removed external links here [3] yesterday. They have been put back with a comment on the article talk page here [4].

There are two issues for me. The Knowhere guide link - the article for this has been deleted as it had very few Ghits indeed - it would appear that some links may have been to enhance the site's ranking. It was while I was removing these links I found the page in question. I would far prefer to see this link replaced with some more conventional link as citation - a non notable website would not seem to be a good place to look for notability.

The local links - these are all extremely worthy (largely placed by IP's), however my view and understanding is that Wiki is an encyclopedia not a directory and if these type of links were on every page for every town it would become a directory.

Given the editor's comment on the article talk page I feel that other views should be heard please - thanks --Nigel ^(Talk) 12:20, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very pleased to have this put up for review. I am content with whatever consensus is reached. Fiddle Faddle 12:36, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that an article about a town/city doesn't need links to every organization in that town/city that may have its own website. Can you imagine if we started doing that with cities like New York City? A link to a single directory page might be appropriate in place of the individual links.

Regarding the knowhere link, regardless of whether knowhere is a notable website, it most certainly does not appear to be a reliable source. Most damning is its own disclaimer plastered on the pages:

| Important Note: all entries in the Knowhere Guide are the opinions of its users. see What is Knowhere for more info about the Guide.

and, on their "What is Knowhere" page:

| We make no claims as to the accuracy of the information in the Guide - our only purpose is to provide a forum for users to share their knowledge and opinions.

As forums are links that should normally be avoided (even as a plain external link), certainly this type of information cannot be considered reliable enough to use as a citation, as it appears to be used for in the article in question. As such, I feel it ought to be removed. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 14:57, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm with AbsolutDan on this one. Pascal.Tesson 15:37, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The knowhere guide does not meet WP:RS, and the fact it is "backing up" should have a citation needed template. As for the other links, they are not relevant to the subject of the town as a whole, and are the nucleus of a link directory, which we are not. Instead, why not add a link to a single open-source web directory like dmoz? (e.g. for here [5]). Aquilina 16:01, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do appreciate all the input and imagine we can consider this one resloved. I've learnt quite a bit for which thanks and will review links on pages with more confidence (tho the Knowhere guide was a bit of a "no brainer" for me). Thanks Aquilina for the dmoz one, I'll certainly use that in future. I know of it, I see it on pages - did I think of it...! Best --Nigel ^(Talk) 17:17, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Panda sandwiches

I just wrote a proposal (WP:PANDA - though probably more of an essay) that's essentially a reductio ad absurdum argument for why we don't like spam, vandalism, and POV-pushing (came out of a momentary whim of mine when responding to a "website fan" pseudo-spammer on WP:VPP). We argue with people about this over and over again here, and don't have a clever, friendly, and fun-to-read page about why they can't link to their site even though it's such a great site that everyone would want to visit it if only we let them link to it from every conceivably related article.

Needs some work of course, but it could come in handy... please add/subtract/correct. <kidding →>And don't delete this posting, I worked hard on that webpage, and I deserve to make a few bucks off it. </← kidding> --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 17:39, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing to add, just - Panda sandwiches. Meh. I actually had to argue with someone who insisted that Wikipedia needed an article about manatee steaks… Femto 18:40, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did they link to it from the PETA article? :) --SB_Johnny|^talk|_books 18:46, 16 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Intercultural competence

(I don't really know where to write that)
Hi. I think this page is some kind of spam for an employees training technique or something like that. This subject can be interesting (and is already studied in many scientific disciplines) but only when the purpose of the page is to tell who does what, when it started, etc. Not when it tries to give a fake scientific aura to some kind of a messy collection of ideas. Jean-no 21:39, 18 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opinion needed about one link

At Logo, I've been in a disagreement over one particular link for a while now. To summarize, I removed a link because in my opinion it looked like a thinly veiled advertisement for a logo design service. A new user, User:Cochese8, came along and re-added the link, so I decided to assume good faith and leave it.

Then someone else pointed out that the link was originally added by the the site owner, User:Jsmorse47, who used the email address cochese8@[removed for privacy] for the website registration (note that this is the name of the user above). Jsmorse47 does not deny being the owner of the site. When asked, the two users avoided the issue, then said they are not the same person but friends who got the name from the same place.

I have removed the link several times, and a couple of others have removed it once or twice, but these two users continue to re-add it. I would be happy to accept any neutral opinions, whether for or against the link, since I've already spent too much time on this one link. Wmahan . 04:04, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I weighed in. Perhaps a bit heavily though. These guys have some nerve wasting your time over this. Pascal.Tesson 04:29, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Much appreciated. I hesitated to bring the issue here, but I didn't like the idea of letting a link stay simply because someone added it so persistently. Wmahan . 04:35, 19 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]