User talk:Requestion/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Do not edit this talk archive. For new comments please use the User_talk:Requestion page.


External spam links[edit]

Have you considered writing articles about some of the notable software you have been deleting links to? WP has many gaps and some external links, particularly in lists, are there to temporarily plug these gaps. Stephen B Streater 16:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've reverted a couple of you external link removals. WP:EL is a style guide, not policy, and so is open to reaching a consensus. I feel you haven't considered your removals with sufficient care in the case of some lists. If you would like to discuss any particular link, I (and others) are happy to oblige. Stephen B Streater 17:26, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't a list of notable software. It was a link farm. I could go to a software website such as Tucows and add hundreds (if not thousands) of similar and applicable programs to this particular Wikipedia software list. Would Wikipedia benefit from this? No, it would make a horrible mess. My goal is to help keep Wikipedia looking good. (Requestion 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Thank you for your response. I was concerned about the apparent indiscriminate removal of information from WP. Your user page makes it look like you have, in your own mind, raised the WP:EL style guide to the status of policy, which it is not. I also remove a lot of external links from WP, but I always check them for relevance first, and often external links contain good, relevant information. Lists are a good place to highlight the lack of an article in WP for people knowledgable in an area. Clearly, I respect a considered removal of a few links, but often links have been added after a discussion and are deemed relevant. The nature of Wikipedia ensures that there is much notable software which doesn't yet have an article. Perhaps you would be interested in writing an article or stub or two yourself? Stephen B Streater 17:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry about that. I'm just trying to clean up the Wikipedia link spam problem. (Requestion 04:21, 27 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Note that WP:NOT is actually "official policy" and not just a guideline. So I didn't do anything "in my own mind" as Stephen B Streater suggests. (Requestion 22:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Removal of spam links[edit]

I undid your removal of links from List of audio players (software). Removing links that don't have articles yet is not a valid reason for removing them. --Mperry 16:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am just trying to clean up the Wikipedia. My logic for removal is that the empty links should never have been created in the first place. If a software program is significant enough then an article should be created first. I am against Wikipedia software lists in general, they are fertile ground for link farming, and categories are better at accomplishing the same thing. (Requestion 15:16, 24 May 2006 (UTC))[reply]
It should be noted that the above audio player list was a thriving link farm and it was deleted by unanimous vote on July 9th 2006. While I did vote for the deletion, it was not my preferred solution. (Requestion 15:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

FORscene[edit]

The original FORscene article has been userfied - you can find it now at User:Stephen B Streater/FORscene. Feel free to knock it into shape. If you need help finding verification, please ask and I'll point you in the right direction. Stephen B Streater 06:15, 28 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oscilloscope link removal[edit]

I added a link to TiePie engineering to the oscilloscope page in the list of oscilloscope manufacturers. I think wiki users should be able to find TiePie engineering in this list because it has been manufacturing oscilloscopes for 19 years and is exporting to 80 countries. Therefore it can be considered to be one of the big players. Can you explain to me why you removed the link and not the links to the other companies? Can you please leave the link intact or remove them all? (Marthein 09:17, 22 November 2006 (GMT+1:00))

Is this Marthein of TiePie? The way you added two TiePie external links was very spammy and caused me to take action. And I wasn't the first, a previous editor removed both of your links! I kept the semi-informative link and I removed the blatant spam link. See WP:EL for policy details. The Oscilloscope page was turning into a link farm so I thank you for suggesting that I clean it up. All external oscilloscope links have been removed and turned into internal links. (Requestion 16:55, 22 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Dolby Digital page[edit]

I have to apologize for my most recent edit -- I thought that I was logged in and clearly was not. My intention certainly was not to be "sneaky" and will be more careful about that in the future.

I am a novice to Wikipedia and perhaps you can help me understand more clearly why you object to the edits of the external links. I've checked with my colleagues here at Dolby and those three codecs are unlicensed and therefore illegal. I'll recommend to my colleagues that they take it up with SourceForge as you suggest. With that said, we don't feel that they should be promoting their unlicensed software on a page that is intended to discuss Dolby Digital. Could you please elaborate on what you mean by "these are valid links"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Dolby Interactive Marketing (talk • contribs) 22:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Dolby Interactive Marketing and welcome to the Wikipedia. It is important for you realize that the Dolby wikipedia pages are not an extension of the Dolby.com website. You don't own these pages and you cannot control them. Sometimes truthful but unflattering information will be added. You might not like this but that's how the Wikipedia operates. Aggressively deleting information that you do not like could result in bad PR for your company.
The links you deleted are "valid" because they are both informative and relevant. The projects linked to might be unlicensed but I highly doubt that they are illegal. Here is my logic: those projects are hosted on the SourceForge free software portal which is based in Fremont California, and Dolby is well aware of the existence of these projects, and some projects have been active for 4+ years, and Dolby has an army of IP attorneys, and so far those projects have not been shut down. So the only two conclusions a sensible person can make on the legality of those projects is that Dolby has either failed in legal attempts to shut them down or they have chosen to allow the projects to exist due to the potential PR backlash. The links are legal and the links will stay unless you can source some information that says otherwise. (Requestion 16:22, 20 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
We're a smaller company than you probably think (my observation is that our army is of engineers, not lawyers), but there just aren't enough hours in the day for the IP team to track down and pursue every licensing violation out there. They were not aware of these projects on SourceForge. With that said, I have to respectfully disagree with your two conclusions.
I've asked the IP team to investigate but this will, of course, take time. While we wait, I did want to point out that our business model is a licensing business based on patented technology, of which, Dolby Digital is probably the best known. An Implementation License is required to license Dolby technologies in software. Would it be satisfactory to show that these software decoders do not have the required Implementation Licenses to remove them from the page? Dolby Interactive Marketing 23:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would not be satisfactory. It is fairly obvious that a free software project could not afford a Dolby Digital license, and if they could I doubt Dolby would sell them one. But in any case that isn't relevant. Just because Dolby licenses it's patented IP does not mean that the free software projects on SourceForge violate those patents. I personally don't know if they do or if they don't, but as an engineer I do know that there are usually numerous methods that can be used to implement technology around a patent. Like the saying goes "there are many ways to skin a cat" and large tech companies do this all the time and there is nothing illegal about it. I also know for a fact that Dolby (the company) has been aware of those SourceForge projects for several years. Please don't use the Wikipedia Dolby Digital page as a marketing extension of your Dolby.com website. (Requestion 16:47, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Fair enough. Would you mind sharing who here at Dolby has been aware of those projects? I must be talking to the wrong people here since I'm getting a different answer than you. Your help in getting this sorted out would be greatly appreciated. Rather than posting that info here, please feel free to send that to me privately. Dolby Interactive Marketing 17:46, 21 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry can't help you there, it was some unknown Dolby employee I met at a tech conference a couple years ago. (Requestion 19:11, 21 December 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Wow, you have a really twisted view on external links, removing them when they're intentional yet keeping them when they're unwanted, perhaps you'd be the perfect editor to start this new article: Warez links. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by LinksWant2BeFree (talk • contribs) 20:04, 27 February 2007 (UTC).[reply]

PRISM Business Media Inc.[edit]

Re [1]: Thanks! I saw you have no contributions there - may I hereby formally invite you to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam? You look like you would feel right at home there. (I've opened a case about PRISM at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.) Femto 13:22, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invitation. I've discovered that Prism Business Media through a complicated series of acquisitions is Penton Media. The list of Prism domains, agents, and spamming exploits are now located at Talk:Penton Media. It seemed like a better central location of information to me. (Requestion 20:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Thanks - Bigbag[edit]

Thanks for removing bigbag. Now I see no reason to write the artice since you think it is "irrelevant". Did you ever think about it got delayed in writing for some reason? Do you have any knowledge in industrial packaging? --Boongoman 07:38, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I've never heard of BigBag before. It looked like a nonsense empty junk link to me. Why don't you write a BigBag article stub first then add the links back. Or, if you like, write the BigBag article and then let me know and I'll add the links back. (Requestion 16:09, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Then I will put a notice to you. For educational purposes: [http:// www.deltaterminal.se/bilder_3.htm Bigbags]. --Boongoman 16:45, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Wow, those are some big bags. I didn't think Bigbag was for real but I was wrong. I apologize for any harm I may have caused. I have reverted my 3 bad edits. (Requestion 17:22, 21 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Screamers (1995 film)[edit]

If you have a problem with the VHS & DVD release dates referencing amazon (which you apparently do) then find another source to cite those release dates. I won't let references be removed simply because they link to a commercial entity. Cburnett 17:31, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the DVD release date reference to a less commercial source. I'm still looking for an alternate VHS release data source. (Requestion 17:59, 20 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
On March 19 2007 the issue was resolved by an edit war, a page lock, and the realization that Amazom.com is not a reliable source. Simply beautiful. See Talk:Screamers_(1995_film)#VHS source for details. (Requestion 18:59, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Link vandalism farm deleted[edit]

Please stop removing appropriate external links from wikipedia. It is considered vandalism and strictly prohibited in wikipedia. If you continue vandalism, you will be blocked from editing wikipedia. --Urod 01:34, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am absolutely sure that a good software listing should contain external links for all pieces of software where internal links are missing. I am not flexible about it. Oh, and there is a consensus supporting my point of view. Unless you believe that mediation may help, I suggest to go to the arbitration commitee. --Urod 01:48, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Arbitration Commitee is here. I will obey any ArbCom decision. --Urod 01:51, 25 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Go for it. For reference of what this irate and confused user is talking about see Talk:List_of_screen_capture_software. This dispute revolves around my attempts at cleaning up a link farm. (Requestion 01:59, 25 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The saga continues. User:Urod took this dispute to the Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) in search of help with the "Deletions of external links." Flush with blatant WP:EL and WP:NOT violations, Urod angered the wise policy makers. Instead of the aid Urod seeked, Urod got this double AfD. There was much debate. Socks and spammers popped out of the woodwork. There was vandalism, WP:CIV violations, and blocking. As it turns out, almost everybody loves lists of external links, so large quantities of WP:SPAM were consumed as this AfD festered on for 10 days. In the end the result was Delete and now there is nothingness. (Requestion 23:43, 8 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.justlearnmorsecode.com[edit]

The link you recently removed from the topic on Morse code and a few other relevant topics is in NO way a more "inappropriate external link" than the ones you left in there.

How do you justify this behaviour ? And at any rate, who made YOU God ? - Jalla (07:42, 27 February 2007 (UTC)) (User_talk:85.165.69.221)

Hello Jalla. This has nothing to do with appropriateness or relevance. The justlearnmorsecode.com links you added qualify as link spam. For more information why see WP:NOT. Please feel free to remove your competitors external links in those articles if you feel they are link spam too. (Requestion 18:34, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Suspected puppet list in chronological order:
A very persistent link spammer and this all began Oct 2005. Count: 30 linkspam adds, 10 warnings. I think it is time to black list the justlearnmorsecode.com domain. (Requestion 23:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

AfD for List of screen recording software[edit]

I have replied at my talk page. By the way, I like your user name--it's a nice portmanteau. Cheers, Black Falcon 21:26, 26 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have to admit that I had to look up portmanteau but it's more than just my name, it is also my personal philosophy. (Requestion 21:36, 26 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Contributions/LinksWant2BeFree[edit]

Why are you so anal about external links? Wikipedia uses the nofollow tag, so putting an external link in an article does absolutely nothing to increase ranking in search engines. If more information is available off site, then why not link to it? Do you want to make an island out of Wikipedia? (User_talk:LinksWant2BeFree) 19:46, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

LinksWant2BeFree is my first wiki-stalker! I feel so honored, thank you. See Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/List_of_screen_capture_software for reference of what this is about. See the contrib log too, this user is running around Wikipedia and randomly reverting my edits, some current and some months old. (Requestion 20:27, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmmmm, you have reverted far more of my additions than I have reverted changes by you, so by that definition you are stalking me. I am just returning the favour. You are also not answering any of the questions I posted above. Not that I was expecting an answer, anyone who reads your posts can clearly see that you are more interested in being a pedantic prick rather than having a meaningful discussion. --LinksWant2BeFree 21:08, 27 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I didn't think you were actually expecting an answer. Well here they are:
  1. because I'm a Wikipedia spam fighter.
  2. WP:EL and WP:NOT and WP:SPAM are good starting points.
  3. An island? I'm removing external link spam. I'm making Wikipedia more of a Roach Motel. "Once you click in, you don't click out." (:
(Requestion 21:35, 27 February 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Issues, AfD, need help?[edit]

Regarding the issues at Talk:List of screen capture software, do you need help fighting this vandalism? If so, drop a note on my talk page, see Wikipedia:Requests for page protection or see Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress. Mermaid from the Baltic Sea 00:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer. Need to see how the AfD goes. If it's a keep then I'll need some help with the WP:TROUT. If it's a delete then there will undoubtably be some payback vandalism. (Requestion 06:49, 1 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Barnstar[edit]

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to Requestion for dliligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia

This barnstar is in recognition of your tireless effort to clean Wikipedia of unacceptable external links. Although we may have different views on what constitutes a reliable source for the article space, I have the highest regard for your outstanding dedication to identifying and rooting out spam, reverting vandalism and eliminating other nonsense. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, while we do have differing views on things it is important to know that I do respect your opinion. Thank you for awarding me this high honor. I hope this Spamstar works in warding off all the angry spammers that come here seeking a pound of my flesh. (Requestion 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like both of you! We all tend to have some diversity of opinion (which is good), however the common thread is keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. A thankless task for the most part, but invaluable to the project. congrats!--Hu12 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Batman references[edit]

Thank you, Commissioner Gordon. Come on, Sparrow, they're signaling for The SpamWatcher 03:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to have you back. Sparrow? Hmmm. What are you doing standing around? Don't you have some spam to find? (Requestion 06:54, 17 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Urod 2[edit]

We've now accepted this case. You've been named as an involved party, so you may wish to add a statement on this issue, either at the above link or you can E-mail me. —Pilotguy (go around) 15:32, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not interested in this dispute anymore, because 2 of 3 pages had been deleted. --Urod 17:12, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know why those pages were deleted? I didn't do it. You did it when you went to the Village Pump and angered the policy makers. I sure hope you intend to honor AMA's decision and follow the WP:EL rules. (Requestion 23:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
No, you voted for deletion of it. So you, together with others, deleted it. --Urod 16:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
True, I did vote for delete, but I didn't nominate it for AfD. Like I've said before; deletion was not my preferred solution. (Requestion 20:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your "friendly" reminder 3RR[edit]

I most certainly am not "about to violate 3RR." Such insinuations are false. AnAccount2 20:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That was yesterday. I don't think the word "insinuation" means what you think it means. Have you even read WP:3RR? I was attempting to help keep you from getting blocked. Do you know that you've entered an angry hornets nest with this whole Urod thing? (Requestion 21:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The fact that you admit you consider the dispute so angry means that you see people are putting their emotions above the goal to improve the quality of the encyclopedia. I will continue to replace the link, because it is far more informative than the two links which I removed in its place. I do not know who Urod is, and I have never heard of him before I came across this dispute. And yes, to insinuate means just what I used it to mean. AnAccount2 07:00, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
How and why did you originally go to the C++ page and get involved with this freecomputerbooks.com dispute? Your contribution log shows an interest in electric cars. Your first time venture into a programming language topic with the sole purpose to be confrontational appears highly suspicious. So how and why did you get involved? (Requestion 18:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Screamers 3RR[edit]

You are also about to violate 3RR.. Besides, I do not violate 3RR, and I do not need reminding.. And, it is NOT spam, Amazon is a source.. Perhaps we should issue spam warnings for linking to imdb now? Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for mentioning it, I don't violate 3RR either, but I appreciate the note. Amazon is spam, so is Imdb but not in the same blatant promotional way. (Requestion 21:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Okay, I'm sorry, I should've been more repectful, I think I need to take some time to cool off.. Again, I apologize.. I'm going to take a mini WikiBreak.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:04, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, no need for an apology. I'm just attempting to keep an uncivil situation as civil as possible. Do you have any idea why this Screamers article has attracted so much heat? I don't understand it. (Requestion 21:16, 18 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I dunno, anyway, but in the interest of both parties, I requested full protection until this is settled.. Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:21, 18 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I made a comment about Illyria05, Matthew, and Cburnett being buddies explains all the heat over at the Screamers (1995 film) article. (Requestion 22:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Replying to the message you left on my talk page.. Anyway, Matthew is one of Wiki-friends, but I do not really know this third person well.. Anyway, I was not happy to see that the edit war began even after the page was un-protected.. And, about the resolution, it's fine :) .. Please reply to me on my talk page :) Illyria05 (Talk • Contributions) 21:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

List of animation studios[edit]

I added a link of an animation studio to a "list of animation studios" and you deleted it as link spam. I can only guess why it was deleted, since you didn't bother to give sufficient information. You should be a little more diplomatic next time by including at least a brief description as to why the link was removed. unsigned comment left by User:201.230.159.48 00:12, 19 March 2007

Did you read the message I left on your talk page? Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links is the key issue here. You also shouldn't use Wikipedia to promote your website. I'm also not the only editor who had to remove the links you added. (Requestion 06:21, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.discount-trailer-parts.com[edit]

Hello Requestion, I was wondering why you removed the external link that I posted on the disc brakes page for the do-it-yourself brake job. I was referred to it from a friend of mine who could not remember the name of the website it came from. He told me it was on the disc brakes page in wiki, and that it linked directly to the site. When I checked out the page on disc brakes it was no longer in the external links section. I checked out the history section and saw that it had been deleted because it was spamming wiki. The site in question is www.discount-trailer-parts.com and the user that was spamming was johnnymac99. I went to the site and used the brake video to change the front brakes on my car and it was excellent. I don't know if you have actually watched the video, but it is actually a guy at his home, doing a brake job the way you would if you were doing it yourself. I haven't seen anything else like on the web. I contacted the website through their 'contact us' form and asked them why they were spamming wiki? Their response was that they thought they were adding links that were appropriate where wiki had gaps in their information. I told them that their links had been deleted and that their site was now flagged as a spammer. It was my impression from them that they had no intention of fighting to put their links back on wiki. However, I think it would be a shame if their brake video was not in the disc brakes section of wikipedia. It definitely adds something to the page it was an external link on. It was for this reason that I put it back on as an external link. It also seems that they are not a commercial site as they do not have a store or any advertising on any of their pages. If you haven't checked out the 'how to change brakes' page on www.discount-trailer-parts yet, I recommend that you do. I think you'll agree that it is in the interest of wikipedia to have a link to it, and if you have to change the brakes on your car any time soon, it will probably save you a lot of money on a brake job! Geddes66 20:14, March 18, 2007.

Yes, knowing how to do your own brake job is a wonderful thing and I fully support it. Several editors have had some trouble with spamming to that site though. User_talk:Johnnymac99 almost got his discount-trailer-parts.com website blacklisted. I think the website is really great but this isn't the sort of thing that Wikipedia needs to be linking to. If you are interested in why then I'd suggest doing some reading over at WP:NOT. (Requestion 06:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]


List of systems management systems is now a separate page, but it still contains possible spam links. Could you explain some details of Wikipedia link farm policies to me? For example, comparison of web servers article looks like a link farm, doesn't it? -- Anrie Nord 2007-04-16 23:37Z
The relevant policies and guidelines are WP:EL, WP:NOT, and WP:SPAM. I added an {{external-links}} tag to the Comparison of web servers article. I agree that both articles have certain link farm qualities but the List of systems management systems is going to be a spam magnet and it is going to be the source of a lot of future problems. I recommend changing the external links in both of those articles to be red internal links. Give those red links a chance to blossom into blue articles. Then, in a couple months return for some house cleaning and remove all the red links. That is what I try to do and most of the time it works well. Good luck and let me know if you need any help with the spammers. (Requestion 16:18, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Thanks for the tips! I've taken a look through the policies and started with modifying the article by creating a comparison table with some red links. — Anrie Nord 2007-04-17 21:59Z
You're welcome. Hope you don't mind but I rm'd those PIKT and Puppet external links that somebody else added to your new clean table. I also moved the {{cleanup-spam}} tag down. I've found that spammers tend to emulate. So if they see a bunch of external links then they will likely add one. Strangely, the red links appears to scare them away and sometimes you'll even see spammers adding red links! I think the color red confuses them. So the sooner those spam links are cleaned up the sooner your page will be living a happy life. Good luck. (Requestion 02:15, 18 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

SWOT Analysis[edit]

Thanks for your message, the coursework4you link was placed by another user, by they didn't seem to link it properly. I was unaware of any problems with this site, but I wasn't sure it fitted criteria as a link, I left it in with a note on the discusion page. I will remove it, if it still there.--Pandaplodder 08:48, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your support. Do you know that there is still a coursework4you reference in PEST analysis? (Requestion 17:39, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sorry about that, just went through the history log again and saw who put it in. PEST analysis is now clean. (Requestion 17:54, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

your recent anti-spam warnings[edit]

Welcome to Wikipedia. We invite everyone to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia. However, the external links you added do not comply with our guidelines for external links. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links; nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, external links do not alter search engine rankings. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page before reinserting it. Please take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you.

Please no not leave active links when warning users about the sites that they are spamming that just helps their cause with one more link. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:00, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

First off, they are not active links, they have the spam. domain prefix. Second, WikiProject Spam suggests that we do this. Third, WP:EL does not apply in talk space. Fourth, you do not have a right to modify my talk messages. Fifth, you are a broken bot and you are violating WP:BOT. (Requestion 19:07, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
yes they are active links, spam is in any namespace even if they have a spam prefix just no wiki them. as having any links helps the spammers. and I am not a broken bot. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, your signature makes it look like you are a bot. A large number of spam fighters utilize this bread-crumb tagging technique. We need to take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam since this is their policy. In the meantime can you please stop changing my messages? It is kind of rude. I know you mean well but if I went around changing peoples messages I would be blocked. (Requestion 19:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
already left a note there. add in the nowiki tags will not bet you blocked as the policy about changing others comments does not apply. All my actions were doing was disabling the link in your comment and in no way changing the meaning of your comment. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 19:37, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
My comment was meant to show up in a LinkSearch: query. So, yeah, you completely changed the meaning. (Requestion 22:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Exactly. If not changing the verbatim meaning, it's certainly messing with someone else's intention behind their comments. Unless there is consensus supporting your position that these links in fact should not be left on talk pages—and that people in fact should be given a warning for it—would you kindly stop this crusade? The whole point of these links is so that the talkpages will appear in a Special:Linksearch for the link, enabling us to keep track of long-term low-volume links accumulating from varying accounts and IP addresses. It helps our cause much more than it helps theirs. Femto 23:41, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I just came across this essay and thought it relevant to the current conversation: Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars. --A. B. (talk) 19:29, 21 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, an arbcom action has been opened up -- see: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Betacommand. I feel bad about this but from looking at it, it looks like there are a number of issues folks are concerned about. --A. B. (talk) 21:56, 27 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for letting me know about that Arbcom link. The blanket de-spamming at rapid speeds seems to have created an angry mob that wants a lynching. Quite frightening and it doesn't look good which is unfortunate because Betacommand's heart is really in the right place. I'm thinking about writing up a short paragraph in Betacommand's defense. I spot checked about 50 of Betacommand's blanket despam edits and they look OK but a scope this massive should of been discussed first at ProjectSpam. What is worrisome is that the mob is focusing on abuse of admin / bot privileges and not on the side effect of 1000+ de-spam edits. When you remove that much spam you are bound to get a couple dozen angry regular editors screaming bloody murder that their external link was deleted, that's just the statistics of it. (Requestion 18:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Three comments:
  • It's possible that Betacommand just has a bunch of tabs open to facilitate copying and pasting a bunch of warnings and edit summaries efficiently, then when he's done, hits a bunch of "save page" buttons all at once. I do this some times. The result is something that looks like a bot working rapidly -- but just for a minute or two.
  • I try to keep my spam deletion accuracy rate >>95%; my goal is to provoke as few regular editor complaints as possible by deleting only spam. Real spam never has anyone going to bat for it. Otherwise, if I'm deleting good-faith but noncompliant links, I just end up disrupting Wikipedia and frustrating the innocent -- I'm not sure it's worth it. It gets a bunch of regular editors angry at the whole spam removal/"link-nazi" "cabal", which doesn't help any of us much. I strongly believe Betacommand needs to slow down and be more selective. There tens or hundreds of thousands of truly spammy, sleazy links among Wikipedia's 3+ million external links -- that's enough to keep all of us busy 24 by 7 without any friendly fire. I'm still in awe of Betacommand's spree of deleting usaid.gov links from articles involving United States Agency for International Development programs -- what on earth was he thinking in targeting that as spam?
  • I remain troubled by Betacommand's tagging your page. I appreciate your forgiveness of him, but that mistake's a pretty big deal, especially since it's not apparently an isolated faux pas. The last time I chewed out a regular editor by mistake after not assuming good faith, I ate crow and wore sackcloth and ashes for months -- and that's as it should have been. We're here to serve, not to hassle.
Having said all this, I appreciate your commenting at Arbcom, positive or negative. I thought you would want to know about this. Let's hope that Betacommand: a. survives and b. learns something. --A. B. (talk) 18:54, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I also do the batching up of edits trick with Firefox tabs, but I can't sustain those speeds for more than a minute. I'm not sure if BetaCommand did this with a script or a special automated preview tool in which case all the edits were verified by a human. That would toss a wrench into the whole bot abuse argument. It might not of been the proper thing to do but it sure was effective. Did you ever see this thread? Those edit summaries look strangely familiar, hmmmm. Who is the mysterious User_talk:James_McStub? In anycase I think this important topic needs to be discussed further and the WP:EL folk don't seem to be willing to tackle it. (Requestion 20:34, 28 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Just a note my bot like actions have been reviewed by BAG and they have sanctioned me accordingly. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 22:20, 28 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That was some really spooky foreshadowing when I mistakenly said "Fifth, you are a broken bot and you are violating WP:BOT" just prior to your 1000+ despam edit day. I'm not saying that a bot was used, but it was a freaky coincidence nevertheless. Looks like the request for arbitration is going to happen (3 out of 4 so far) and it smells like a witch hunt which is just plain wrong. Let me know if you think a positive comment from me would be more valuable in this current request phase or in the actual arbitration phase? I've never seen an arbitration like this before so let me know your opinion. (Requestion 22:57, 28 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please reconsider[edit]

You reverted my change on the spam project page despite the fact that I've explained it is against Wikipedia policy. You then acted uncivilly and called me a spammer. Please reconsider your actions. I would prefer that you revert your change but at least explain yourself. And apologize for name calling. Noroton 01:39, 23 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Name calling? I was simply stating a fact. Sorry, Noroton but you are a convicted spammer, see here for reference. I am sure you understand the major conflict of interest with letting spammers edit the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam page. Thank you. (Requestion 02:59, 23 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  1. unless you have reason to beleive a particular edit is inappropriate, your actions go distinctly against WP:AGF.
  2. Wikipedia does not have a policy for "convicting" anyone. It's an encyclopedia that anyone can edit, and they should be free to do so unless they've made it clear that they will not abide by the rules. Having done something wrong before is not reason enough to revert someone. i kan reed 20:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello i kan reed. The reasons why the edit was inappropriate has been discussed by several editors over at the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam page. This is a much more complicated matter than it seems on the surface. I would appreciate it in the future if you could do a little research, I estimate two hours for this particular case, before you make random comments on my talk page. Thank you. (Requestion 21:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah. I've just been reading about this and it is just another case of Requestion aggressively defacing content on Wikipedia in the name of an imaginary "war" against spam, along with some other schoolkids who are the self-proclaimed WikiProject Spam Members. It is pitiful to see Wikipedia vandalized in this way. Jon Harrop 10:05, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For reference of what Jon Harrop is talking about see User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings. (Requestion 14:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Shredders and Disk Cloning Link Removal[edit]

Please help me understand why you would remove my link to TeraByte Unlimited CopyWipe ( http://spam.terabyteunlimited.com/copywipe.php ), from the Shredding page, but leave links to others, including ShredIt and cyberCide. CopyWipe does not have its own article, but neither do the other two. And those are just random examples. (Scott D 02:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Same thing with Disk_cloning. Why remove my one external link, and leave all the others? I don't get it. A new link to terabyteunlimited.com is bad, but existing links to ~30 other external sites like symantec.com, veritas.com, drive-backup.com, altiris.com, linbox.org, feyrer.de, drivesnapshot.de, partimage.org, miray.de, and a slew of others are all OK? Please explain, because this confuses me. I could understand if my edit made the page catch your eye, and a full cleanup was done, but removing only my link doesn't make sense to me. (Scott D 07:27, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I was not being selective about your terabyteunlimited.com link and it is nothing personal. I simply don't have enough time to delete all the link spam that I see. Please read WP:NOT to understand why I deleted your external link. The {{cleanup-spam}} tag was added to give someone else a chance to deal with this spam problem. I see that you re-added your terabyteunlimited.com link and blanked your discussion page [2] [3]. You should be aware that some admins consider removing user talk page warnings to be vandalism and will permanently block you for such violations. (Requestion 17:28, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You were not being selective in removing that one link? Sorry, but I cannot get my mind around that statement. There were about 30 links on the one page, all external and essentially identical in nature and intent, and you removed my ONE link. You had time to go to the page, remove my link, and make a couple other edits, but you don't have time to remove even ONE other link, even though they are right there? Again, it is impossible to see this as anything other than selective, arbitrary editing.
Perhaps I will assist you with your "spam link" removal, by removing ALL the links on those two pages.
And I don't need any more thinly-veiled threats, thank you. You, a non-admin, add an unnecessary blurb to my talk page, even though it was essentially redundant to what was already there, and I have to look at it forever? If this is what Wikipedia is like, I'm glad I didn't spend more time here sooner, nor will I bother to contribute further. And like it or not, I feel as if that was your point to begin with. You win. Hooray! (Scott D 22:40, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You did something that popped up on my spam radar, I went in and removed the spam, it's that simple, and it's nothing personal. If you read WP:NOT you will understand why your links were deleted. Take a look at my contribution log. I have about 1000 despam edits, most of them are very surgical and very clean. When I run into a link farm, I add a cleanup-spam tag and those links get cleaned up at a later date. Thank you for re-adding those links. You prompted me to remove the two spam magnet sections from both of those articles, but please do help with removing spam, we need all the help we can get.
Adding sequential spam warnings is standard practice. It sounds like you didn't even bother reading any of the links in the spam warnings before you blanked your talk page, again. And your comment "Bother to contribute further?" You're joking right? Almost all that you've done in the past two years is add external links to Wikipedia. (Requestion 23:59, 29 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.wi-figurus.com[edit]

I saw that the Wirelss LAN page needs some major content update so as a quick fix I added a link to Wi-Fi tutorials written by Jim geier to the Wirless LAN page becuase I believe the users looking for Wireless LAN information would greatly benefit from more than 100 free professional quality tutorials written by Mr. Geier. Jim is author of several books on wireless LAN published by Cisco and other publications. So I would appreciate if you could put th elink back. ( User:Cvparikh 19:38, 30 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The wi-figurus.com link that you added to Wireless LAN wasn't appropriate because external links to forums, tutorials, and how-to's are to be avoided. Please see WP:EL for further clarification. Bascially Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. Also the AdWords on the wi-figurus.com page suggests a promotional nature, but I would of deleted it even if it didn't have ads. The most important question though is how does that link improve Wikipedia? (Requestion 22:56, 30 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If this is the case can you please explain how does the current two external links on the Wireless LAN page add value to Wikipedia? They are both very commercial in nature. The first one 'Wireless LAN - Directory & Informational Resource' is nothing but a page full of Google Adesense ads with a list of few external links to Wi-Fi related organizations. The second link, '3G/UMTS wireless LAN router' is a review page (Sept 2005) of Cisco-Linksys and Vodafone introduce a 3G/UMTS wireless LAN router on Engadget site (again comemrical in nature with Google ads). Whereas the link I submitted was to the tutorial section of Wi-FiGurus which has 100 some professional written tutorials that would help any one seeking more educational type information (aren't many wikipedia users information seekers?) about wireless LAN. unsigned comment by [User:Cvparikh]] 16:48, 6 April 2007
I missed that one. Good eye and excellent spam sleuthing! Those links you just described sound very spammy to me. Could you please delete them? I recommend using an informative edit summary. Mentioning something like "removing linkspam" is always a good idea. Stomp out link spam cause it's fun! (Requestion 17:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion of link on Radicore[edit]

Hello, you have twice removed the official web site link from the Radicore article; however, having a link to the official home page is encouraged, quoting WP:EL:

"Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any."

As long as the address is not found on Wikimedia's blacklist, it can be linked regardless of whether it's been spammed on other articles. If you really want to get rid of it, you are welcome to nominate the article for deletion; however, your current behavior is arbitrary at best. -- intgr 06:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Over at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam we are told to remove all links added by a spammer. I am a surgical spam fighter and that is exactly what I do. User_talk:Tonymarston has been spamming the radicore.org and the tonymarston.net external links across Wikipedia. Tony is one linkspam away from being blocked and blacklisted. Don't worry about the Radicore because it will be deleted soon enough. I would appreciate it if you removed that radicore.org link I deleted. Thank you for your support. (Requestion 14:42, 4 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I wouldn't expect WikiProject Spam to override the external link guideline. I'll remain neutral. -- intgr 15:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clymer repair manual[edit]

Hi. I noticed you've removed the links from Clymer repair manual a few times. I agree with you that the one for the parent company and the one for buying the manual are quite spamish. But I think there should at least be a link for clymer.com, since that is the company that makes the manual. What do you think? Cheers. --EarthPerson 14:48, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This company is being blacklisted from Wikipedia. Note that User_talk:JHenton is a Penton employee and that this corporate spamming has been going on for many months. (Requestion 14:52, 4 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I see. Is Clymer repair manual going to be prod'd or AfD'd? If not, can there be a link to clymer.com? I'm only asking since it seems to be related to Chilton manuals and I though that Chilton was notable enough for an article. --EarthPerson 14:57, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes the article will likely be deleted. I'm a little confused. Aren't Clymer and Chilton different companies? Clymer is owned by Prism Media which is Penton Media. (Requestion 15:02, 4 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
My bad. I wasn't clear. They certainly are different companies. I meant that they were related only in the sense that both were third party repair manuals for cars or what-have-you. If you look over an early version of the Clymer article, I put in a see also that included Chilton. Pity about the spaming. I'd think that stubs of each would be good. Thanks. --EarthPerson 15:07, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd like some more information on the Penton Media spam campaign then check out Talk:Penton_Media and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Feb#PRISM_Business_Media_Inc. Two months later and I'm still finding and cleaning up old Penton/Prism spam. (Requestion 00:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Startcom revisited[edit]

Hi. I just left a note against blacklisting Startcom and I wanted to make sure you understood I was not trying to shoot you down. I spent 2 hours of time going through Linux and security articles on other wikipedias today not looking for Startcom links but just trying to figure out if this foreign company was notable -- was anyone anywhere else in the world mentioning the company or its products. I wrote this up at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/StartCom‎#Startcom references in other Wikipedias. I found the record was mixed in terms of COI vs. AGF edits.

It was only later that I saw [[your post at WT:WPSPAM. I wanted to make sure you didn't think the robot was coming back to try to bite you. --A. B. (talk) 20:36, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No problem. Thanks for the note. I still haven't decided if I want to voice an opinion of delete or keep in that AfD. I probably should decide soon before the AfD closes. The only thing that makes StartCom Linux marginally interesting is the SSL angle. I'm a huge Linux fan so I am a bit biased. On one hand I've never heard of StartCom which means they fail my personal notability test and on the other hand I want to see Linux succeed. The advertising on the Startcom pages is very heavy and the external linkage also seems spammy. So I have a dilemma. Do I stomp out spam or do I support one of the zillion Linux distributions? (Requestion 22:43, 5 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not an expert on either Linux or SSL, but from my digging around today, I'd say the SSL is a keeper and the Linux distribution is not. Maybe merge the company and SSL articles together. I found the comment from Stpeter compelling.
As for bad behavior, well ... I just remind myself I'm here to write an encyclopedia and even Satan gets an article. I try to put my personal annoyance aside. (Call me a robot!) But I know how you feel. --A. B. (talk) 23:37, 5 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
SSL is the encrypted layer that you use every time you purchase something on the net. When you see "https:" and the lock, thats SSL. Anybody can get certified keys and that is what StartCom Linux is doing. StartCom doesn't make SSL, they just sell it like many companies do. So the business deal to distribute/sell SSL keys makes StartCom a little different than your average Linux company but it doesn't make them special or even notable.
Even Satan gets an article, I like that. I created the Penton page with a similar line of thinking. Have you noticed that Penton is active again after a 2 month hibernation? Too bad that the MyWikiBiz page got deleted, now it is a redirect. I voted to keep it. (Requestion 01:22, 6 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
On an unrelated topic, nice edit summary (the last part)![4]--YourRobotFriend (talk) 12:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Didn't intend for it sound like broken English. I forgot to add an "is" so it would read: "This is the WP:SPAM talk page not WP:EL, Mars revealed." Maybe it was better that way? About mars-mars-mars.com, I just love calling peoples bluffs with diffs. But in this case I'm not sure he was bluffing, I think he just forgot. After a couple hundred linkspam additions I guess it is difficult to remember exactly what you added! (: (Requestion 16:38, 6 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deletion of RADIUS links[edit]

I saw that you removed a number of links to whitepapers on RADIUS - for example the history of RADIUS on the RADIUS server wiki page. After your last deletion, I went through considerable effort to create an HTML page with the white paper content and link on the Wiki page directly to the white paper HTML - so not to send users generically to a resource page with our white papers.

I've done similar work to create other pages to point directly at those pages instead of a generic resource page. I'm trying to be a good citizen, but it seems like once you've locked onto a user, you remove all their links, all the time. Even on pages that list all the radius servers on the market, you specifically targeted my link, and left similar links of all other users.

What's up with that? Our white papers are no less valuable than the Cisco & MS whitepapers that you have routinely left in place. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wikiboy121 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 5 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It just wasn't me, a lot of other editors have removed your links too. Wikipedia is not an advertising medium. The links you have been adding September 2006 are WP:SPAM. Also please keep in mind that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. If you feel that your competitor's links are spam then please feel free to remove them, in fact I would appreciate it if you did.
I have a question for you. I understand how interlinknetworks.com and lucidlink.com are connected by Vern Smith. But how does companycrafters.com fit in to this? It has nothing to do with RADIUS. Why are you adding that link? (Requestion 01:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I added the entreprenuer's dictionary as a contribution because I've used it as a resource for financial terms, and it fit the sections I added it to. unsigned comment by User:Wikiboy121 19:24, 6 April 2007
You liked companycrafters.com so much that you added it to 9 different articles in September 2006? Then you switched to spamming interlinknetworks.com external links for a couple months. And just recently you created the Interlink networks article. This just seems really fishy to me. (Requestion 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just discovered [5] that Mike Klein is the CEO of Interlink Networks and a managing partner of CompanyCrafters. Interesting. (Requestion 22:54, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Domains


Socks

The final warning has been violated twice. Need to file a report. (Requestion 19:34, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Count: 62 linkspams. I suspect that User:Wikiboy121 is a MyWikiBiz-type company that creates articles for pay. I really touched a nerve with this spamming which caused a lot of spooky stuff to happen. (Requestion 21:39, 26 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

m-indya.com java-samples.com linkspam[edit]

The links I had added were informative pages and not spam. Why would you remove relevant links? (Eskalin)

Sorry but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. You own those websites and that is a serious WP:COI. This has nothing to do with the quality or the appropriateness of your webpage links. Please stop adding those links to Wikipedia. (Requestion 06:49, 6 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Another admin will now add a note to the page requesting citations or asking for an expert editor. And around we go. Jon Harrop 05:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jon for that very insightful comment. (Requestion 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Domains


Socks

The final warning has been violated. Need to file a report. (Requestion 20:18, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Count is 15 linkspams. More talk page blankings which are then followed by some interesting link request puppetry over at Talk:SCADA with User:Ramkay. Silly rabbit, Trix are for kids. (Requestion 21:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
All domains are registered to Jeyasoft Solutions in Singapore. Only the m-indya.com and java-samples.com domains are known to of been spammed on Wikipedia. (Requestion 22:57, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Radius external link[edit]

Hello, I see you removed an external link I added from the RADIUS article to the open.com.au RadiusExpert wiki. Its not clear to me that the link qualifies as linkspam. The RadiusExpert is a vendor-neutral source of relevant RADIUS information including information about compatible RADIUS devices and software contributed by the RADIUS community. It includes relevant information not found in the parent RADIUS article. The link is not "for the purpose of promoting a website or a product". We host the wiki as a service to the RADIUS community, without regard to company or product. I do not belive this is a WP:COI. Please reconsider. Cheers. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mikemccauley (talk • contribs) 01:34, 7 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

No response yet to previous request for reconsideration. After 10 days, you have not yet addressed my comments at User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Radius_external_link I respectfully request that you consider my points and respond. Cheers. Mikemccauley 22:03, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but I've been overhelmed by an insane amount of spamming comments on this talk page and others. I have no idea what RADIUS page you are talking about, could you provide a link? I checked your contribution log and that doesn't help because you added the open.com.au link from a different account. The WP:EL page says that links to wikis are "to be avoided" so that might be it. Many of the RADIUS pages have become spam magnets so it could be related to that too. I can't speculate any more without an article or a user link. (Requestion 22:27, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Im talking about Radius server and your edit of 120108133 00:15, 4 April 2007. Mikemccauley 05:54, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I remember now. You must of been User talk:218.214.125.86 that made this [11] edit. That particular RADIUS page was a spam feeding frenzy a couple weeks ago and the spamming got a little crazy. Things were also aggravated by Special:Contributions/70.9.83.146 who went on a spamming spree with the open.com.au link amongst others. Note that I am not the only editor that had to clean this mess up. Add in that WP:EL says to avoid wiki links, your WP:COI with the inclusion of this link, and we have got a problem. It is important to remember that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory and nobody has a right to have a link included. (Requestion 19:47, 22 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jeff Winter podcast[edit]

Hi. I didn't add the podcast reference, and I don't really mind whether it's included in the above article. However, for future reference, I need to know why you removed it as linkspam, when the podcast contains the voice of Jeff Winter, and therefore a high degree of relevancy, or at least in my understanding of what makes a reference. Would appreciate your thoughts. Thanks. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:21, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Refsworldlee. I'm just cleaning up the mess made by a spammer. Check out User talk:65.248.131.254 and Special:Contributions/65.248.131.254 for details. I'm not sure if this user is just an overzealous fan or if this is somehow related to the ScriptLogic spam? (Requestion 21:27, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Despite being impressed with your good work on this user's spam edits, I really think this is an exception, and he/she has made a valid link to relevant content via the web. Would you be offended if I reverted this instance to include the podcast? Or I could re-add under my own name if you'd rather? Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 21:53, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This individual/company has added about 100 external link spams to Wikipedia and you think this quality link is an exception? This users domains are going to be blacklisted so I wouldn't bother re-adding it. A blacklisted link will lock the page until it is removed so it will just cause problems for editors who are not aware. I just found another swath of spam IPs so the scope of this spamming just got bigger. (Requestion 22:02, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
No need to get defensive, I have already said I couldn't care less. It can stay as it is. Refsworldlee(chew-fat)(eds) 23:51, 7 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OCaml for Scientists[edit]

Please stop deleting only my book from the list of OCaml books. The link has been added back by several other people as well as myself. If you believe that Wikipedia should not reference any books then at least be self-consistent and delete all of the books (although I think that would also make Wikipedia worse). -- Jon Harrop

Please stop adding your book and your ffconsultancy.com website to Wikipedia. It is considered spam. You've been warned multiple times and you are about to be blacklisted. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link directory and it is not meant to be used for advertising or self promotion. Adding your own links to Wikipedia is a serious WP:COI. If you feel that the external links to the other books are spam then please delete them. (Requestion 23:14, 7 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You recently deleted another link to free articles on our company site that was added by someone else. You are not deleting spam. You are deleting content. -- Jon Harrop
Sorry but Wikipedia is not an advertising medium and external links are not content. (Requestion 03:50, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You did not delete advertising material. You deleted links to free articles.
I appreciate that you are trying to improve Wikipedia but, having read your talk page, I have had to add you to the Wikipedia vandalism page because of your persistent defacing of valid content that has been contributed by many different people. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Jdh30 (talk • contribs) 04:12, 8 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Linkspam ast.cac.washington.edu?[edit]

I wouldn't say the links added to bagpipes and hurdy gurdy by telle2007 are linkspam. In fact, they're very high quality demonstrations of instruments, mainly from the French baroque courts. There isn't any advertising on those links that I can find and they are very interesting so I've reverted them back again. I don't know about the other links but you might want to check them out. I'll be offline for a couple hours from now so keep that in mind if you're going to respond soon. :) Graham87 03:18, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Telle2007 is just one of 7 accounts that this individual has used to add a couple hundred external links to Wikipedia. This user doesn't respond on their talk page and the Special:Linksearch/*.ast.cac.washington.edu domain is going to be blacklisted. I have nothing against hurgy gurdys or bagpipes. In fact I remember seeing Sting play one at the Oscars a couple years ago. I'm just trying to clean up the mess made by a mass-spammer. (Requestion 03:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note that you yourself do not respond to many objections that have been raised here, you have chosen to remain anonymous and you have been branded a spammer and a vandal. Jon Harrop 15:44, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Requestion, you deleted a link from the Ingrid Mattson page citing Linkspam. How was this link different from any of the others? I've also asked this on the article's discussion page Macduff 03:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Requestion is clearly violating WP:VAN by removing links without adequate reason. Jon Harrop
Note that Jon Harrop has a spam complaint above. See the OCaml thread. (Requestion 03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note that Requestion now has a vandalism complaint. -- Jon Harrop
Note that the false vandalism claim by Jon Harrop has been discarded, see [12]. Please don't feed this troll anymore. (Requestion 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Macduff. I don't know what you mean, different from what others? Take a look at Special:Contributions/Jammer6524. It is the same ast.cac.washington.edu spammer. Follow the LinkSearch above and then click on the contributions for each spam.user and you'll see all the links that they added. I count about 200 linkspams. Many other editors have reverted this spam too. (Requestion 03:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Since this ast.cac.washington.edu spamming has generated a fair amount of interest I am going to begin laying out my evidence:

Domains


Socks

This individual has so far failed to communicate on any discussion page. New WP:SPA's as they are found will be added above. Blacklisting is going to be requested. (Requestion 07:13, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Requestion, I appreciate your passion but your emotive language and lack of logic are disheartening. Firstly, you have assumed that those links are all spam. They don't look like spam to me (in fact, there are some very interesting videos freely available from those pages), and they don't look like spam to others here. So that is at best debateable. Secondly, you seem to have assumed that all links to that site must have been added by one individual who created several accounts and used IP addresses registered all over the world. That seems very far fetched claim. I know that you incorrectly accused me of the same thing before you deleted all links to free content on our company's site, so I must assume that you are now incorrectly accusing others.
I think everyone would benefit if you used a little less haste and a little more speed. Consider the hundreds of links before removing them all. Are these links really devoid of merit? If you honestly believe that Wikipedia would be better without any external links then try to convince the admins and alter the software so that external links cannot appear in articles. In the mean time, I think the best way for you to improve Wikipedia is to stop deleting content and upsetting the people who spend their precious free time writing these articles. Jon Harrop 09:46, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above comment by Jon Harrop was an attempt to cause as much disruption as possible on my talk page. He has since been blacklisted, had his article deleted by AfD, and his User:Jdh30 page deleted as blatant spam. Several times he was almost blocked from editing Wikipedia. See User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings for more information. (Requestion 21:49, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The original source for those links[edit]

The original source for the links is the [http:// www.researchchannel.org Research Channel] hosted by the University of Washington. See their [http:// www.researchchannel.org/prog/welcome.asp about page] for more about their mission. They appear to be a cable channel in the US who put many of their programs online. I have no idea why the 7 accounts you listed above had to use the ast.cac.washington.edu URL - perhaps that is spam (the port 20000 number seems suspicious) or maybe it is a legitimate mirror. The SPA's behind these accounts are being far too aggressive but they are adding links to legitimate content. I think the links to ast.cac.washington.edu should be dealt with on a case by case basis (there is bound to be some junk in there) and replaced with links to researchchannel.org. However I understand that the SPA's are adding them far too quickly and aggressively and that is a problem.

I'm also a spam fighter and I normally deal with blatant spam like say [http:// www.popsnail.com these people] who spammed a lot of articles last Christmas, but I've never seen a case like this. Graham87 08:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The people who added these links did not seem to consider the relationship of the article to the video, and that is also why they can seem spammy. For example, a link was added to John Astin where the only relationship between him and the video is that he happened to be the narrator. He had nothing to do with the contents of the video, which is actually about pioneering work at Johns Hopkins University related to the history of television. Therefore, I added the link to the history of television article since it provides a valuable resource beyond what could ever be in the article. That is how I ideally see external links sections and I think researchchannel.org could be an excellent resource when used effectively in this way. Graham87 12:33, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is clearly another example of Requestion misclassifying content as spam. Just keep reverting his changes and hope he stops defacing Wikipedia... Jon Harrop 18:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Jdh30 for your insightful comment. Now please stop trolling my discussion page. If you want to talk about your ffconsultancy.com link spamming then please do so in the appropriate thread. (Requestion 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Given that you are the only person classifying this (e.g. my PhD thesis) as "spam", your talk page is the ideal place to discuss it. Jon Harrop 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to talk about your ffconsultancy.com spam then use the OCaml thread above. If you want to talk about your PhD thesis spam then use the thread you started below. Your random chiming in on several other unrelated threads is not constructive. (Requestion 21:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hello Graham87. Spamming cases like this are rare but it happens more than you think. If you watch WP:WPSPAM you'll see it is quite common. I've personally dealt with about 7 mass spamming cases like this. Kudos on your info digging skills. That was some good research figuring out the connection to the researchchannel.org website. I'm pretty sure that they are the same people and wonder why they are link spamming Wikipedia with such vigor? The problem with replacing the ast.cac.washington.edu links with researchchannel.org links is that mirrors also get blacklisted. Using multiple domains, mirrors, and URL obfuscation sites like tinyurl.com are standard spammer tactics. (Requestion 18:59, 8 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
That wasn't spam either. Jon Harrop 20:19, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
A WHOIS for 128.208.151.181 shows that at least some of the links are being added from the University of Washington, the host of researchchannel.org. I have therefore emailed them about the inappropriate addition of links through researchchannel.org's feedback form. I hope that the email will clear things up. Graham87 12:41, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As I thought, they were adding links as they said "more out of ignorance than ill intent". I will write telling them more about our conflict of interest guidelines. Case hopefully closed. Graham87 02:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You really don't understand how this all transpired. These people have caused a number of Wikipeidians (more than just me) a lot of trouble. Back on March 22, after the addition of about 100 external links, the warnings finally stopped them. They then started up again a week later. The first time was ignorance, the second time was ill intent. I also don't appreciate your reverting my edits with a mirror link. Other than the spam factor there are a quite a number of problems with this particular link. WP:EL says to "avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software." For example, I can't play these links on my Linux machines. I am going to push for blacklisting ast.cac.washington.edu which also includes the researchchannel.org mirror. This will lock out editing of the article pages. I am going to begin removing these external links in order to prevent any further disruption. I would appreciate it if you would help me. (Requestion 05:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
By directly linking to rich media, I have always interpreted WP:EL to mean a link like [http:// www.carolinaclassical.com/articles/erlking.html that] (I couldn't have done it any other way in the Der Erlkönig article without violating the direct relevance principle above. Looking at how often [http:// emacspeak.blogspot.com/ this screen reader maker for Linux] goes on about media players, I honestly can't believe that there is not some kind of program that can be used to play either Windows Media or QuickTime files with Linux. But that is beside the point. The researchchannel.org links may require Adobe Flash Player to use them - I haven't gotten around to testing that. If so, the problem can just be solved by putting a notice next to the link saying "requires Adobe Flash Player" or similar. I really have no idea why links to free video content from some of America's most prestigious universities should be blocked from Wikipedia, and I will oppose blacklisting if/when you request it. Graham87 07:42, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL is quite clear on this. Quicktime and Windows Media require special software, it is that simple. Also there is no legal way to play those codecs on Linux. AFAIK, Windows Media support on Macintosh was suspended by Microsoft at an older version but I'm not a Mac owner so I don't know if this is still true. But more importantly, you are using a mirror link to re-add link spam that I deleted. That is very poor fellow-spam-fighter etiquette. How would you feel if I used mirror links to revert the spam you deleted? (Requestion 07:55, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
OK we'll probably have to agree to disagree about it being spam. I don't see it as spam - just a high-quality resource that happens to be a video so it requires special software to play. The people who originally added this violated WP:COI and WP:EL at the very least but that doesn't mean the whole site should just be banned from Wikipedia. The rich media section of WP:EL only prohibits *direct* links to rich media, not linking to HTML pages that just happen to have links to rich media on them. If you click the classical music link I provided above you will either see Real Player try to connect and play the music or you will see an error message that you do not have Real Player. You don't seem to have a choice in that matter. However if you click on the researchchannel.org links, there is just html, JavaScript and (if you have Flash Player installed) some flash content for navigation which isn't strictly required. I have been reverting you before because I honestly do not believe the links to researchchannel.org (or any of the UW mirrors) on their own violate any policy or guideline. Reverting you now would be very bad etiquette for a number of reasons so I won't do that, nor will I add anymore researchchannel.org links. I still have the right to discuss this further and I will solicit another opinion at wikipedia talk:external links. Graham87 08:20, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You asked for other opinions Graham.... I don't think the content of the site is relevant to whether or not it was spammed. And I do think spam links should be removed. That doesn't mean regular editors of an article shouldn't be able to add them back if they believe they improve the article. But simply mass changing the link to a different URL isn't appropriate, additions of external links should be a considered editorial decision on the basis of the individual content and its suitability, not on the basis that it's a respected source so it must be a good link (there are some exceptions to this with things like database records, where consistency across articles can be a good thing).
This link was clearly spammed - added by otherwise non-contributing users for the sake of promoting a resource and as such should be removed. Blacklisting seems harsh given the potential for the site to provide good information. On the other hand consistent spamming needs a strong response. I wonder, with an organization the size of this one, if they've really been given notice in an effective manner. I doubt talk page messages or even emails to their website get attention from those who could seriously make policy and procedure changes that would stick. Blacklisting may be the only effective way to get them to take their COI issues seriously at an appropriate organizational level.
I've never understood the EL guideline against all links that require specialized software (what's a browser after all?:-) And it is clearly not something we enforce widely - pdfs, links to audio and video files, flash and other media are all over Wikipedia and I think add a great deal to the articles. But when something is mass added that won't work easily on a sizable number of computers that's another thing - accessibility should be considered with every link. Mass additions make it clear that no consideration was given to whether the information could be better provided in a format that was more accessible. -- Siobhan Hansa 12:01, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I emailed researchchannel.org yesterday and they asked me what steps they could take to avoid their links being classified as spam. I responded by pointing them to WP:COI, asking them to discuss any future links on the article talk page, and also asking them to be transparent with Wikipedia about their interests. I received a response basically saying that they were looking into the advice I gave and they may ask further questions - so basically they seem to be aware of their linkspamming problems in the past. With most of the links I added back I had listened to the videos first to determine their suitability as external links. The accounts did make some unusual choices of links - adding a link to [http:// rcuwtv-dev-01.ast.cac.washington.edu:20000/prog/displayevent.aspx?rID=6872&fID=345 a video about three children and the health system of Cambodia] to the main Cambodia article. As for accessibility, that is a problem for non-windows/mac users but one I'm sure their trying to rectify. In conclusion my position is that it is not spam but should not be added willy-nilly to articles; it can however be an excellent resource when used correctly. Also I will await further responses from the Researchchannel team. Graham87 12:21, 10 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of blacklisting? To prevent future spam damage to the Wikipedia. These people have wasted countless hours of our volunteer time. If there is a good chance that the spamming will continue then it is our duty to blacklist the site. Since an open line of communication is the best tool for dealing with spam, I will hold off on my blacklist request if Graham87 can get a promise from someone in a position of authority that the spamming will stop. It's also probably a good idea to hold off on suggesting posting first to the Talk: page until we sort out this WP:EL special software issue. (Requestion 23:40, 10 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I have emailed them quoting the text you wrote above about blacklisting. They implied that they would stop the spamming in their previous messages but it is always good to get a solid quote. Graham87 03:38, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've got mail. See User:Graham87/researchchannel email Graham87 05:04, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Graham87. They say their spamming will stop. That is great news. I will not sumbit my blacklist request as long as they uphold this agreement. Now we need to discuss the software accessibility issues. (Requestion 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
To answer SiobhanHansa's question about what is "special software." A browser is required to view the web so that is a basic minimum requirement. Modern browsers come with JavaScript builtin these days but everything else is extra, even Flash and Java. Look at the Fedora Core installation; all you get is Firefox, .ogg audio support, and a .pdf viewer. (Requestion 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Being a Linux user I have a huge problem with the accessibility of researchchannel.org's video content. They detail the requirements here: [http:// www.researchchannel.org/help/help_viewing.asp]. As a Linux user I cannot view this material. Windows Media Player and Quicktime use proprietary codecs that are not available on Linux through any legal means. It is also very unlikely that Microsoft or Apple will ever support the Linux platform. So special software is required, and this special software is not available to me. The guidline WP:EP says to "avoid directly linking to any content that requires special software." Take away the video content on the researchchannel.org links and you are left with zero content. I believe the intent of this WP:RULE is related to the decision that made the .ogg codec the only audio format supported on Wikipedia. I think it is fair to say that the founders wanted to support open codecs because they wanted to ensure the right of accessibility of content to all Wikipedians regardless of choice of operating system. (Requestion 15:35, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
So if they used Theora, RealVideo or some other video codec which is available on Linux, that would be alright? They currently use Advanced Systems Format and QuickTime .mov format (both of which could be played via FFmpeg, but as you say, that's illegal). I still think it is a useful resource that should be used, but it is a pity that it doesn't use codecs that can be legally played on Linux. Graham87 01:42, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm a practical Linux user so I'd be happy with any solution that works and doesn't require me to break any laws. There are a lot of Linux fundamentalists out there who are opposed to anything proprietary so that would toss RealVideo out as a general solution. But even with usable codecs, I still think there is a problem with this site and the way WP:EL mentions special software. Maybe it should be clarified or changed? Or maybe this is exactly what the founders intended? (Requestion 03:10, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hmmm consensus seems unclear on the rule - see Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 13 #PDFs as a relatively recent example and Wikipedia talk:External links/Archive 2#Links to MP3s for some more discussion. . I'll do some more trawling through archives and history and see what I can dig up. To me guidelines don't always have to be followed to the letter - I think they are useful advice pages but do not have to be strictly followed. Graham87 04:08, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the edit where the rich media section was added by User:Jmabel. He then moved his comments and added a slight clarification. He is basically saying that external links to rich media are fine. It is preferred that the rich media doesn't directly open as the link is activated, but an indication should be given of what technology is needed to use the linked rich media. That message appears to have become garbled by more recent edits and the rich media section as it is now is poorly written - it jumps between talking about direct and indirect links, and I find the examples confusing because of that. This belongs more on wikipedia talk:external links though and I'll probably raise it there. Graham87 04:38, 12 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation moved to Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_16#Clarification_of_rich_media_section. (Requestion 15:00, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet[edit]

Now I see that you have removed the link to the only document that describes this wavelet (my PhD thesis). There is obviously no logical reason to do so. Jon Harrop 18:30, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea that you wrote an article about about your PhD thesis. (Requestion 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
So you edited it without reading it? Jon Harrop 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I didn't realize that it was PhD thesis content and I didn't look in the history log to see that you were the article creator. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You should get some background information before you vandalise a page, otherwise you cannot know what you are doing. Jon Harrop 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't you think that's just a little vain? (Requestion 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You think it is vain for someone to write about their own research? Jon Harrop 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is highly inappropriate for someone to write about their own research on Wikipedia. If your work is that novel and ground breaking then someone else will write about it. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I e-mailed the admins and they disagree. The content of a (passed) PhD thesis has already been peer reviewed by experts and is in the public domain, so it is ideal for putting on Wikipedia. Moreover, most of the content that I added was introductory material (e.g. the other wavelets). You will also notice that many other people have read and contributed to the content. The obvious problem with your idealism is that people will not contribute in their expert fields.
You should leave these kinds of decisions to people who know more about this subject (e.e. PhDs), otherwise you will just degrade Wikipedia. I notice that you also enraged the author of FFTW by incorrectly accusing him of various things. Steven is a very nice, clever and hard working guy. I think it is a great shame when someone like you upsets people like him, because it puts everyone in a worse situation. Jon Harrop 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Have you ever heard of WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:NOR, and WP:CITE? Then on top of that, now you are trying to use this Wikipedia article as a platform to advertise your biz? And ethically you think this is all OK? What about the 40 or so other linkspams you added to Wikipedia? I guess the Wikipedia rules don't apply to you. (Requestion 07:43, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Pot, kettle. Look at your own spam and vandalism. Consider your anonymity. I'm going to go out on a limb here: are you Thomas Fischbacher? I only ask because you are the only person who agrees with him. Jon Harrop 16:13, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Would you believe me if I said I wasn't Thomas Fischbacher? (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yes, I would. Jon Harrop 04:01, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Video removed from Judith Rodin page[edit]

Hey, I was looking at the history of Judith Rodin's page and saw that you removed the link by enigmajames. Your reason for doing so is a bit confusing to me though because all you have listed as a rationale is what looks like some sort of web address and the word spam but it is all scrunched together. Anyway, I went to the link and it does not appear to be spam at all. In fact, it shows Judith Rodin at Penn hosting a talk on 9/11 so I was hoping you could explain your decision to remove a little more. Thanks. Bricks2183 01:48, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Bricks2183. It was part of a mass spamming. For details check out the User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Linkspam_ast.cac.washington.edu? thread above. It's a bit busy up there but work your way through it and check out the contribution logs, you'll see the bigger picture. (Requestion 01:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Note that Requestion believes that all Wikipedia edits are part of mass spammings. Jon Harrop 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delta-sigma_modulation[edit]

Hello Requestion. You removed my external link from Delta-sigma_modulation and left a message on my talk page suggesting I discuss it on Talk:Delta-sigma_modulation if I felt the link should be included. I did, and the person who maintains Delta-sigma_modulation has endorsed my link and given his consent for me to re-instate it; but I wanted to run it by you first, in case it came up on your radar, and one of your scripts escalated the threat level to DefCon3, banning me from using the Internet. I've also proposed a correction to a small error on the page, and I was thinking of citing my link as a source, instead of adding it back as an EL. So, is that OK with you? Also, would you mind removing that thing you put on my talk page, now that I am rehabilitated. --80.177.105.226 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you weren't banned, it was only a defcon2 warning. You did the right thing by asking on the talk page. I would like to applaud your efforts in following the Wikipedia rules. Adding it yourself is still a slight WP:COI problem and your addition might appear on the radar of some other future spam fighter. Why don't you ask Katanzag to add the link? No one would question his authority and your link is more likely to be a permanent fixture that way. I really do think you are rehabilitated and you have no idea how happy this makes me. I am going to strike out that spam warning and add a brief comment explaining why. Thank you. (Requestion 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

More fun[edit]

I was reluctant to post this at WT:WPSPAM ((no point driving spammers underground), but it's fun to troll the web-site auction sites looking to see who's selling sites and bragging about Wikipedia links. Here's one, for instance:

Have fun! --A. B. (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That almost makes it too easy. (: I browsed the sitepoint.com search list but I didn't see any familiar domains. Did I miss something? (Requestion 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sometimes, taking out the links of someone high profile on these sites has a real multiplier effect in terms of other site-owners seeing the hassles of trying to spam Wikipedia:
Hopefully, this made an impression on others, preventing some new spam. --A. B. (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the NICO Club guy also went around to multiple other forums complaining about our link deletions, which just further spread our message that spamming Wikipedia may be more trouble than it's worth.[33][34][http:// forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/228363] --A. B. (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trace route[edit]

For the many other people taking issue with Requestion's vandalism, there is an example on my talk page of him misinterpreting the results of a trace route to conclude that someone in Egypt was me (I'm in the UK). However, I would strongly advise anyone being victimized to simply give up and walk away. There is neither logic nor honour here, and certainly nothing worth fighting for. Jon Harrop 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jon for yet another random comment. For reference see User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Jdh30_Warnings. (Requestion 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.actividentity.com[edit]

I noticed you removed some linkspam from actividentity.com (the page concerned is on my watchlist. Its unusual for linkspam to be added in isolation so I ran a link search on the thing and found a couple of other spammy links that I removed. The prize was this juicy piece of spam which I have put up for a speedy. Just a thought, but if you have time to do the [Special:Linksearch|linksearch]] on any linkspam you remove its amazing how much stuff there is that need to be taken away. Best --Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the speedy on ActivIdentity. I think one of those WikiBiz companies created the page. It doesn't sound like you used the *. wildcard with the linksearch. Try it again, do you see anything more? (Requestion 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I did the use the wildcard but I didn't have time to do the talk pages. Its school run time.. :) By the way, I realise my message was redundant so my apologies for "teaching granny to suck eggs" --Spartaz Humbug! 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just noticed that you responded to me on the WP:EL rich media and the WT:WPSPAM blogspot threads. Thanks. 23000 blogspot links is crazy. Not sure what to do about the blog and youtube problems. Just need to keep pushing the policy people, maybe the right thing will get done. Time for school? It is time for me to go to sleep! Guess you are on the other side of the planet. Good Morning. (Requestion 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adding flags with no rational in talk page[edit]

You recently added an external-links flag to Comparison of open source configuration management software. The tag said to see the talk page for more info, but you had entered no description of why exactly the tag was added (or indeed any text at all) to the talk page. I went to your user page, which had a useless poem, which made me thing you were probably a confused 'bot, so I removed the tag, which then promptly got re-added. I then discoved this page, which was much more useful - I guess you are human afterall :-). In any case this is a comparison page, and so has a lot of external links, both to the things being compared (I try to use wikipedia stub links there, but other people have deleted the stubs, such as Bcfg2, as spam, which seems to be a nice little catch-22), and references to assertions made about the features and other attributes of the software. In fact I am planning on adding many more for references to each piece of possibly controversial or dynamic information in the future. Did you see any links that you considered spam or inappropriate? Without knowing what you percieve the problem to be, I do not know what you think would improve the situation. Cheers, Djbclark 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like we crossed paths. I just put a response up in the talk page. Djbclark 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Useless poem?" That's not a nice thing to say. Hey, at least I have a user page that isn't red! (: The EL exuberance conversation continues at Talk:Comparison_of_open_source_configuration_management_software#External_links_clean_up. (Requestion 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Jdh30 Warnings[edit]

Please stop spamming my user page with warnings and objecting to my deleting your spam. I would give you the finger but I can't find that SVG so I'm giving you the whole hand instead. Jon Harrop 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. (Requestion 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Domains


Socks

Legend:

The numeric value represents the number of external spam links that were added. A zero value represents that a self-referencing name or product was mentioned. The m value stands for "modify" which represents the nuturing and cultivation of an existing spam link.


It all began March 2005. A total of 44 Flying Frog Consultancy related external spam links have been added by the above accounts. I've deleted 22 of the links [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] which means that other independent editors have deleted the remaining 22 external links. So the claim that I am the only person deleting ffconsultancy.com links is clearly false. It is also important to note that many of these links have been added, deleted, and re-added multiple times. (Requestion 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Petdoc removed [56] the expired {{prod|lack of notability}} tag on the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet article without an edit summary and without any comment on the discussion page. This signature edit [57] proves that Petdoc is a WP:MEAT sock of User:Jdh30. Note that the 80.229.56.224 IP address has been confirmed [58] to be Jon Harrop. (Requestion 21:35, 12 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Articles spammed


Blanking coincidence


Notes

  • Jon Harrop reported me to the AIV as a vandal and has since called me a vandal many times.
  • Jon Harrop reported User:Pjacobi to the AIV as a vandal .
  • Jdh30's contribution log has recently exhibited a flury of activity. It is important to look at Special:Contributions/Jdh30 before March 29 2007 which is when the final {{spam4}} was awarded. Jdh30 only had 34 edits at that point and many of those were the source of this account's 11 link spam additions.
  • Jon Harrop refers to the {{spam}} warnings as spam and considers the removal of spam as vandalism. This basic difference in POV has generated a great deal of conflict.
  • Mild incivility [59] [60]
  • Massive promotion of ffconsultancy.com products at User:Jdh30 violates WP:NOT#USER. "CSD G11: Blatant Advertising" [61].


Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet

  • Jon Harrop invented the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet, 2 page description and derivation in PhD thesis.
  • WP:COI in creating and promoting the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet article.
  • An early version [62] of the page said "The Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet was designed by Jon Harrop in 2004 for the reliable time-frequency analysis of signals ..." complete with the User:Jdh30 link.
  • The Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet does not meet WP:SCIENCE notability.
  • Jon's ffconsultancy.com sells a Mathematica notebook CWT product that implements the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet.
  • Claims that the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet supercedes the Morlet wavelet both on [63] and off [64] Wikipedia. See Talk:Morlet wavelet#The Morlet wavelet was superceded by the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet for detailed discussion.
  • Quote [65] "To the best of my knowledge, our product is the only product that implements this wavelet."
  • This article was deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's deletion policy.


WP:MEAT WP:CANVASSING

  • Jon Harrop has enlisted two friends who created WP:SPA's with the sole purpose to canvas support for the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet and to attack my credibility. All of their edits resorted to emotional arguments in an attempt to sway consensus. Both felt strongly that the Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet should not be deleted but neither were interested in discussing the relevant issues.
    • Special:Contributions/Marie_Mason
      • [66] "it's impossible to to tell who you are and what great works you have obviously done"
      • [67] "some misguided belief that Jon is the root of all spam."
      • [68] "Of course he didn't name it after himself!"
      • [69] "I hope you do decide to try Jon's wavelet. We have been very pleased with it."
      • [70] "Requestion has been very inflammatory and I found that he is rarely constructive."
    • Special:Contributions/Petdoc - used Harrop's IP address
      • [71] "I'd say it was fairly obvious Jon wrote the comment tongue in cheek."
      • [72] "If you ask me Requestion has small man syndrome."
      • [73] removed the expired {{prod|lack of notability}} tag without an edit summary or an explanation.
      • [74] "I agree with Marie Mason that this entire article should not be deleted and that sufficient changes have been made. I also agree with her that it is pointless arguing with you."
      • [75] "However, I really have to disagree that the HH wavelet article is blatant self promotion."
      • [76] "He has called me 'meat' - whatever that is."
      • [77] "I can see how I would be viewed as a meat puppet"


Threads


External references

  • Wikipedia spam links were discussed on the Novemeber 2005 Caml Language mailing list [78]. Interesting quote: "The point is, if Harrop doesn't have megalomania, he sure acts like he does." Read the entire thread because there is quite a bit more relevant information. Particularly [79].
  • The comp.lang.lisp thread [80] which likely was the motivation for Jon Harrop to suspect my identity to be that of Dr. Thomas Fischbacher.



So three of the socks are verified to be Jon Harrop and the other two are low edit SPA's. This Talk:Objective_Caml#On_Commercials_in_this_article thread from October 2005 is very interesting. At one point in time the OCaml article had 7 external links to ffconsultancy.com and the 80.229.56.224 IP resolved to the jdh30.plus.com domain. Jon had a conflict about link spam with a couple other editors. Self promotion and advertising violations were mentioned and someone said this interesting quote: "Doubly so, as there is quite some consensus of Jon Harrop showing quite undue behaviour on the usenet as well as some mailing lists, alienating large parts of the functional community." I'm still stepping throught the OCaml diffs trying to figure what happened but so far it looks like a bit of unpleasantness transpired. (Requestion 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deleting your spam from my user page is not vandalism. Jon Harrop 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is vandalism if your intent is to hide your actions (spamming and vandalism in this case).
If I wanted to hide my actions I wouldn't be discussing them here. Jon Harrop 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you blanked your talk page several times right before you asked for administrator intervention. There are many admins that will block you for such behavior. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Three admins are now involved and none of them have suggested that. Indeed, only Femto commented and he said that blanking my own talk page "is not vandalism". Jon Harrop 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to Thomas Fischbacher. Yes, we had a dispute although it was originally because he did not like the conclusions I drew about the Lisp programming language from the ray tracer benchmark on my site. He also tried to removed all links that had anything to do with me. I have noticed that you bear an uncanny resemblance to Thomas Fischbacher.
My static IP is 80.229.56.224. You deleted links to free content hosted on ffconsultancy.com that were added by other people (who did not have a conflict of interests). I have merely tried to undo the damage by replacing the lost links. Jon Harrop 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I only deleted ffconsultancy.com links that were added by you. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I already cited three counter examples on my talk page. There are many more. Jon Harrop 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting on some explanations concerning the ?wikipedia tracking tag [81] in your first counter-example and the old signature [82] in your third counter-example [83]. It appears that those two IP's are definitely you and the single edit SPA in your second counter-example [84] has a very high possibility of being you too. (Requestion 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  1. We've used Google Analytics to track referrals since Nov 2005 so the tag was of no use to us. So it was either added by someone independent or by someone wanting to lend credence to their conspiracy.
  2. The contribution signed by me was me. Here's another counter-example, about you marking the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet page as a COI despite the fact that the reference to my work was added by User:Jitse Niesen, whose user talk page you spammed immediately afterwards.
  3. Is that "high possibility" of being me the person who contributed from Africa or the one from Japan, or was it Australia? Can you explain how the IP address that resolves to Africa can be "traced back to the UK"? Jon Harrop 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't modify other editors comments. I appreciate what you are trying to do but chopping up other peoples comments breaks the flow, it makes it difficult to figure out who said what, and it is considered bad form on Wikipedia. I am reverting the formating of my comment to the original paragraph. I am changing your comment to be an ordered list. If you don't like that layout of your comment then change it to something else that suites your taste. Maybe a paragraph will work better? I'll give you a chance to reformat and/or re-edit. I'll be back tomorrow to reply. (Requestion 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  1. About the ?wikipedia tracking tag; a "grep '?wikipedia' access.log | wc -l" is simple enough. That IP also did [85] which is a re-addition of a link that was recently cultivated by User_talk:80.229.56.224 with this [86] edit.
  2. I explained the {{coi}} tag in detail here [87] and [88].
  3. I explained the African IP address being in the UK here [89]. And sorry, you're wrong, it really is in the UK. (Requestion 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ask someone who knows how to use traceroute. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So a ?wikipedia tag is completely useless to you?" [90] Google Analytics, I get it. Well, that must explain why you've been using the ?usenet tracking tags since December 2006! [91] (Requestion 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sweet. Femto 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify the above work sheet. Jon Harrop's comments from this edit [92] have been moved here and put in an ordered list format: (Requestion 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  1. Note that the last two are empty. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. by multiple people who are not all related to that company. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. But my IP address has many more edits dating back several years, including the creation and development of many pages that you have vandalized. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I am not a sock - thanks very much. I'd appreciate it if you could remove my user ID from the above list.Petdoc 02:08, 13 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but "sock" is the generic term that we use. It means a lot of different things. You posted a comment above in an active work sheet. I moved it down here to the bottom. I guess you didn't see the "Please do not modify the above work sheet" note. No problem. (Requestion 02:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Special:Linksearch/*.samstoybox.com[edit]



My name is Sam Cancilla, I own the website samstoybox.com where I showcase my collection of vintage toys. You have removed every link to my site from Wikipedia claiming that they are all spam. Not sure who made you God but here are my thoughts on the matter. If someone comes to Wikipedia to read about Spirograph, and the page talks of all the different versions of the toy, I'm thinking the user may actually want to see or read more about the Spirograph toys. I have, to my knowledge, the second largest collection of Spirograph toys on the planet. The first largest collection belongs to Peabody the Penguin and is the first External Link on the page. Mr Peabody's collection is indeed impressive and shows pictures and dates for all his copies of the game. My collection page actually describes, in detail where possible, each version of the toy that I own including part number, date, manufacturer and includes pictures of the sets and all accessories. The expansion request discussion for the page asks for "- Photographs of the box, the toy in its box, and the toy in use." I believe the links to Peabody's site and to my site help provide this. Should I instead edit the page to put my entire collection there? Sorry, I don't have that kind of time--I've already created, as a labor of love, my toysite which contains all information I know about the toys I collect.

So let's discuss the other pages that linked to my site: Armatron - I own both versions of Armatron mentioned in the article and have scanned the instructions for the toy. But it is apparently spam to add a link to my collection page. You think I'm doing this to drive customers to my site? I don't sell anything! Go to Google and do a search for Armatron, my collection page is the first search result, as it should be--it is the only page on the web devoted to the Armatron robot arm.

Battling Tops - My collection includes the rare green board and the 1977 reissued Battling Spaceships games but folks wouldn't want to see any of these things, links to my page must be spam. Vertibird - coolest toy ever made. Clones of the toy were made by many, many companies and I own most of those clones and display them on my site - dates, part numbers, etc. I put a link to my toysite on the "Marvin Glass and Associates" page, a page that lists the names of all the cool toys that this firm created. I own 15 of these toys and have created pages displaying pictures of and describing the toys. How is it spam to link to this resource. Don't you think folks might be interested in actually seeing these toys and reliving their youth.

I can go on and on about the links you've deleted and why they should be there. If the page in Wikipedia lists 50 games made by Ideal and I have pages displaying 20 of them, with pictures, information, free scans of the instructions, who are you to say that a link to my site is spam. Please undo the deletions of all my links, they serve a useful purpose and are not spam. Sam Cancilla, user sfcanci, sam@samstoybox.com. unsigned comment by User:Sfcanci 15:57, 23 April 2007

Hello Sam. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. Do you have any idea how many external links you added to Wikipedia? (Requestion 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding the "linkspam", at least as it appears on Armatron -- regardless of whether it's linkspam, it a) provides quite a lot of background info that isn't in the article and b) isn't actually promoting anything. Methinks you have a rather mechanical definition of linkspam, and as someone with no interest whatsoever in Sam's website I'd prefer to see the link readded, at least to the Armatron article. Haikupoet 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25 samstoybox.com external links have been added to Wikipedia. How many links do you think Sam should be allowed to add? That Armatron scan of the instruction manual appears to be a copyright violation. WP:EL states that sites that violate copyright should not be linked. We also have WP:SPAM and a WP:COI issues. I'd prefer that the WP:RULES not be violated. (Requestion 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
How do you know Sam added all of them to begin with? In fact I think I might have added the Armatron link myself while logged out, though that would be rather hard to prove. As for rules, don't forget WP:IAR -- being a stickler for the rules for the sake of being a stickler tends to be frowned upon here. Sam's site provides background material on the subject, and seems to me to be as good a source as you're going to find on such toys on the Web. As far as whether 25 links is spam, well, I don't recall Wikipedia being subject to an equivalent of the Breidbart index. I'd say the quality of information is rather more important than who posted it, all other things being equal. Haikupoet 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone from Albuquerque added those external links which is far more information than is required. I don't think you understand WP:IAR. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Please see Wikipedia:Use common sense which says "the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter." The mass spamming of samstoybox.com is a clear violation of the spirit of WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Sam also violated WP:CIVIL here [93]. If Sam wants to contribute to Wikipedia then he should think about uploading pictures and adding content to the articles. Sorry but external links do not qualify as content. (Requestion 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Klutus' Warning[edit]

Please stop removing appropriate external links from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism and wikipedia is not a vehicle for your person truths or promotion. If you continue destroying valuable content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This above warning was added because this user not only did change articles to his own home made "truth" but also for removing adequate and relevant links to other sources of information outside the wikipedia. - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 19:54, 24 April 2007)

Hello Klutus. My "personal truths or promotion?" What are you talking about? Did you make that warning tag up? I like it! (: Please stop adding external links for your amazingports.com website. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory and it is not meant to be used for advertising purposes. I see that you had an Obsid article that was deleted because of blatant advertising reasons. Currently I notice some WP:NOTABILITY problems over at Service oriented provisining. I hope that isn't going to turn into a WP:COI problem too. (Requestion 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Klutus: I added an entry that might solve the problem Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#Not_forgetting_the_purpose_of_anti_spam - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 21:41, 24 April 2007)
Klutus: Not all articles are good, that we can agree up-on. Never the less, the fact that YOU tag article in one way or the other has little to do with its actual value, it looks more like you have decided that I'm a bad person and independently of what I do - you try to find something to attack - not very constructive, and I'm beginning to wonder about the reasons. - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 21:54, 24 April 2007)
OK, this conversation has moved over to WT:WPSPAM. I changed this thread title to something more descriptive. You can't just call it "Warning" it needs to have some sort of context. Also please learn to indent ":" and sign your posts with (~~~~). (Requestion 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.amazingports.com[edit]

whois amazingports.com
.
Jan Eldenmalm (jan@eldenmalm.com)  
Fax: 
9 Sheridan Buildings
NA,  
US

whois eldenmalm.com
.
Jan Eldenmalm (klutus1@yahoo.com)
Fax: ##########
Stockholm, STOCKHOLM SE-114 24
SE


Klutus: Yes I have added many external links (not just these once) to companies across the WiFi sector as the sector is new and generally hard to penetrate for the average reader - also I have tried to create balance on pages that are very biased towards one way of thinking.

Unless you have good reason for removing links (which don't seem to be the case) - I suggest you calm down and read my suggestion on how to solve this issue more generally ( see warning above ) - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 21:41, 24 April 2007)

Hello Klutus1, I mean Jan Eldenmalm. A Google search shows that you are the CEO of the amazingports.com company. Hmmm, that does pose a serious WP:COI. Now please stop spamming Wikipedia with your amazingports.com external links! (Requestion 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Klutus: I can't seem to get the deleted article (please tell me how if you know) - The article was about fashion (not my main subject). What I was trying to describe was the fact that the cyclical "nature" of fashion creates lots of frustration as most people don't "fit" the "current" fashion more than occasionally every 2-3 years. I tried to use a company as an example of this (yes I have affiliations with it, that is how this problem was brought to my attention). When I wrote this article it was still a fairly new concept and my writing was terrible ( that was why I never pursued it). Currently (if you take interest in fashion) will know that several other attempts to solve this issue have been made, also the trend has now been described in several "independent" sources (all external to Wikipedia). The reason I wanted to write about it was that the movement is disruptive and will change the way people perceive the fashion industry 5 to 10 years from now. You will also notice the same effect in other cyclically oriented market verticals. Maybe you could help me actually get this article written as you seem to be an excellent internet researcher.
If there is anything else I can help you clarify in your "case file" please let me know. - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 01:17, 25 April 2007
You can't see the deleted file because it was deleted. Only an admin has the ability to see it. Can you please learn how to indent and sign your posts? (Requestion 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Now I learned... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klutus (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Klutus: Found some external links that can be part of your article about AmazingPorts:
htt p: // www.intel.com /cd/corporate/pressroom/emea/deu/102279.htm
htt p: // findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_zdzcz/is_200312/ai_ziff113943
htt p: // www.jupiterevents.com /80211/fall03/agenda3.html
htt p: // www.student.nada.kth.se /~x00_jcb/FinalReport.pdf
(I didn't link any so it's not spam)
--Klutus 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not making those active links, and thank you for learning how to indent and sign you posts. I appreciate it. Unfortunately I'm not interested in creating an AmazingPorts article. Things will be cool between us if you can just stop adding that amazingports.com link. (Requestion 02:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Things will be "cool between" us when you stop destroying other peoples, serious attempts to achieve improvements. As your talk page here displays, on a number of occasions you have destroyed perfectly viable articles and link adding (and even excused your self for it). This page displays only "complaints", indicating that by now you have destroyed a large number of perfectly viable articles, given that most people will not complain. You have to understand that new articles and links to external sources are key parts parts of an evolving knowledge base, fundamentals of the wikipedia (you your self added the notability tag) - which basically asks for links to external verifiable resources. I Also noticed that you do have a real warning hanging around the admin pages - you should take these hints seriously. --Klutus 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Klutus, you need to get a clue. I'm a spam fighter and WT:WPSPAM is my home base. It is kind of funny that you posted your Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#Not_forgetting_the_purpose_of_anti_spam complaint there. Please listen to what those people are saying. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and if you want a happy existence on Wikipedia then you will need to learn to follow them. (Requestion 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Spamstar of Glory[edit]

The Spamstar of Glory
To Requestion for ferocity in the battle against LinkSpam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep up the good work!--Hu12 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hu12, I appreciate the honor. (Requestion 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi ! Are You guys not exagerating a bit? I do not understand how ferocity can be a justification for a reward in this medium. I thought that reasonability and Wikipedia:Etiquette were more appropriate ways of conduct. Remember one of its Golden Rules: "treat others as you want them to treat you." Or Do You like to be treated ferocitely ? --80.201.19.94 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do expect any good Wikipedian to ferociously kick me left and right, should I ever insert mass-posted promotions for my website. Femto 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this : User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#OCaml_for_Scientists
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Linkspam_ast.cac.washington.edu.3F
and this: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_16#Clarification_of_rich_media_section
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#User:Artipol.27s_spam_reversion
Are all those people fanatically advertising their site or ar they providing relevant information as per WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."'
Dont you think it is vandalism when Requestion blanks the information provided without even reading the content as he did here? User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet
Dont You find it incredibly arrogant Requestion decides in a few seconds over the relevance of so many valuable contributions by competant people mostly specialists in their own fields on basis the most disputable and most inconsequent reasons?
By blanking their information Requestion is denying Wikipedia readers access to their valuable information. His blanking goes well beyond the purpose of spam fighting, as it decreases the the quality of Wikipedia rather than increasing it. This is spam fundmentalism of the worst kind which it is doing WP far more bad than good.
The complaints about his stubborn behaviour disregarding all resonable arguments are numerous and are very justified in most cases. The damage of such spam fundamentalism is not restraint to the direct damage of mass destruction of information. Such spam fundamentalism is also frightening bona fide contributors, and keeping them from their task of adding valuable information while Ciber bullying newcomers is terrorising the Wikipedia community chasing valuable contributors away when they see their contributions vandalised.
No ferocity is not a justification for a reward in this medium. Reasonability and [Wikipedia:Etiquette] are more appropriate ways of conduct. - unsigned comment by (User:87.64.93.128 15:49, 5 May 2007)
Yes, all those people except Artipol were "fanatically advertising their site." They also were violating several Wikipedia policies. The Artipol case was about a link farm and I didn't actually delete any of his links or edits. It also should be mentioned that the wavelet and OCaml threads are about the same individual, as are the washington.edu and rich media threads. (Requestion 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
These external links are fully compatible with WP instructions "What to link": see : WP:EL "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means. --87.64.93.128 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken that quote completely out of context and have conveniently chosen to ignore the rest of WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. That quote is about being a source for an article. Maybe the editors that have deleted your workforall.net links don't think your website is a WP:RS or WP:V. Or maybe they think you are spamming. Or maybe they think you have a conflict of interest. I don't know. You'll have to ask them that question. (Requestion 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi guys ! i'm back. Sorry to have kept you waiting so long. We had a hell of a celebration party last night that lasted a bit longer than expected. I also decided to create an account: user:Bully-Buster-007. I did not realise this was so easy,and certainly would advise everyone to do so. Well... back to business. Were where we left. Ah yes... the appropriateness of external links.
Dear user:requestion Please be precise as to what rule you refer to in a debate. We do not feel the need to comment on all WP rules you object to us here. You very well know the discussion about legitimity of external links has come to the point that you should not be interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link this source in case the source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article. We thought you knew this universal juridic principle of supremacy of conflicting rules as it is also common sense. --Bully-Buster-007 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urod strikes again[edit]

Hello. I happened to stumble across this complaint by Urod about me, presumably in regard to this. It all seems pretty harmless; I just thought it was interesting as I find his psychology is quite curious. Xerxesnine 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe he wants to get arbitration involved with that pointless book link. Unbelievable. I thought he got over that. At one point during the User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Link_vandalism_farm_deleted dispute Urod thought Femto and I were socks. The village pump and Afd links are embedded in my talk page link, check out Urod's archived talk page too. Lot of interesting historical information. That AfD got a little crazy.
Urod has a Russian wiki page here http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Urod and I think they have different WP:RULES there so that could be part of the problem. Urod's home page used to have an odd drug reference [101] so I checked out Urod's contribution log and it had a number of drug and mental illness edits. Not sure if it means anything but it could explain Urod's wild and defiant behavior. User:AnAccount2 is also an unusual character, not sure the connection but they are probably friends on the Russian wiki. I'm just happy that those two aren't bugging me anymore. Let me know if the ANI goes anywhere and if you need any help. Maybe I should step in as an arbitrator? (Requestion 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oh my gosh! I just noticed this. Is that what you were talking about, or the "incident" complaint? Xerxesnine 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Urod 2. ArbCom is really busy and they don't have time to deal with pointless issues like this. If you don't mind I'm going to chime in on Urod's latest AMA request. Not sure yet what I'll say but my intent is to attempt to difuse the situation, somehow. (Requestion 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wow, the external link is just 1 of 4 complaints. The others are "unending insults", sock-puppet accusations, and "psychological pressure" causing users to leave WP. That's one full AMA request! Xerxesnine 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to understand Urod but I just can't figure him out. He is not a spammer in the typical sense. The links he adds are not his, I don't see the financial connection, and I don't see any personal connection. The only thing that is a constant is that he seems to provoke conflict for some unknown reason. It is like Urod is trying to make a WP:POINT and I have no idea what that point is. My advice is to be as polite as is possible and just let this ridiculous AMA case fade away. (Requestion 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Obsid[edit]

Per your content review request, the only non-deletion-related revision was:

  • 21:10, 14 March 2007 . . Klutus (←Created page with 'OBSID - an attempt to improve diversity of choice in a market heading for unity of choice and thought at express speed. ---- Obsid have, unlike most fashion retaile...')

Feel free to blank this message after reading it. Femto 11:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Femto. I commented it out. Not sure what Klutus was up to. Were there any external links in that Obsid article? BTW, have you seen User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Urod_strikes_again? Part of me wants to step in and help arbitrate but the other part wants to stay far far away. (Requestion 15:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Nothing else, it's the whole page quoted byte-for-byte. - Yeah though so far I was fortunate enough not having to look deeper into the C++ side of Urod's "problem". I for one am not even remotely the type who would consider voluntarily joining an arbitration. If you do, my respect. Or my deepest pity. Take your pick. :) Femto 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No EL's, hmmm, thanks again for checking. Have you seen Talk:C++#appropriateness_of_external_link? The whole conflict over freecomputerbooks.com is crazy and it makes zero sense. When a worthless link generates this much heat then something is going on. I just haven't figured it out yet, or it could just be Urod being Urod. It seems like there is some serious canvassing going on and I believe most of those WP:SOCK claims are in fact WP:MEAT. I want to stay away but the mystery aspect is drawing me in. (Requestion 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Mystery + WP:MEAT = WP:SPAM (Requestion 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Is Spam ANY link to an external site??[edit]



You've been busy. I noticed that links to www.dataq.com have been removed just about everywhere. I understand, or at least THOUGHT I understood what Spam was until this event. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to advanced the body of thought on any given article? If so, does that effort need to be solely contained within a Wikipedia url? The links you removed were intended to advance the understanding of the page to which they were applied. In all cases the pages of such links were either completely devoid of commercial content, or any such content was transient in reference. In fact several have been published in reputable trade journals who exercise strict editorial guidelines that limit commercial content.

So I can better understand your position, lets start with the shunt (electrical) article. If you have experience using current shunts you know that the risk of explosion and fire is high if these devices are applied to an inappropirate instrument, a mistake that many of our customers have experienced first-hand. http://www.dataq.com/applicat/articles/isolation.htm This application note describes the hows and whys of this error without ANY commerical content except that it happens to appear on a commerical site. It's my belief that such information is curcial to anyone who's considering a current shunt to make current measurements. If you agree, then why was the link removed as spam? Rwl10267 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been busy, thank you for noticing. I see that you folk over at Dataq Instruments in Akron Ohio have been busy too. 21 dataq.com linkspams, very impressive! (: Dataq received their first warning in August 2004 here [102]. Note that I am not the only editor who has deleted dataq.com external links. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory and it is not a place for inserting advertising links. (Requestion 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Will you answer the question, please? Why is the page referenced in my post considered spam? I note also that there isn't any self-respecting company who hasn't tried to be linked through Wiki and been denied. Please don't hold that against me. We haven't violated any recent guidelines regarding spam based upon my understanding of the definition. That's why I'd like your comment to the original question.Rwl10267 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPAM. I added a courtesy message on your talk page, please read it and the links in it. If you disagree with me then you are free to start adding external links again. (Requestion 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This conversation has moved to the Talk:Shunt_(electrical)#Measurements_using_current_shunts page. (Requestion 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

diycalculator.com[edit]



That's the first time anyone's pointed out WP:SPAM#Source_soliciting to me. I think it's a bit much removing his requests. I think it's better to just point out in the talk page as a response to why the link is not appropriate. --Ronz 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that deleting them all is a little harsh. Check out my comment about talkspam I made to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr#An_essay_to_scrutinize. He clearly spammed the talk pages with a blanket message. And then he used a different sock a couple weeks later to add some diycalculator.com links, I deleted those. I don't know what to make of anonymous spam fighter User_talk:69.72.2.72's actions. (Requestion 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Interesting connection to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr#spam_of_CMPMedia_.2F_MillerFreeman_publications_from_MillerFreeman_IP. Must be an employee spamming CMP work sites and personal diycalculator.com, home.ix.netcom.com/~dfirmin sites at the same time from the same machines. (Requestion 05:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

External links - spam - BPMN[edit]




With all respect, but why are some external links treated as spam (like bpmn.itposter.net, which contains useful reference card, which has over 100 downloads a day), and others not (like www.businessmodelingforum.com, which contains nothing more than other links, nothing original). Best regards,

Tomi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.157.150.126 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Tomi. Please see WP:SPAM#Inclusion_of_one_spam_link_is_not_a_reason_to_include_another. I have added a {{cleanup-spam}} tag to the Business Process Modeling Notation article. If you think the businessmodelingforum.com external link is spam then please delete it. Thank you. (Requestion 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I understand that. Anyway, I don't agree with that you've tagged bpmn.itposter.net as spam. Can you tell me the reason for doing that? (except that it is external link) - unsigned comment by (User:Tomiroz 06:54, 29 April 2007)
The reasons were due to the promotional nature in which it was added, who added it, the WP:COI, and that we've had a spam problem with the Business Process Modeling Notation article. Please see WP:SPAM for more information. (Requestion 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Artipol's spam reversion[edit]

Logging into Wikipedia this morning I see you have made a vitriolic attack against me on my talk page. I'm not even sure what you are accusing me of doing? I noticed someone had vandalized the List of emulators page by removing a lot of useful links, I reverted this. "An editor spent a lot of time cleaning up the links on that page." Looks more like simple vandalism to me. Maybe some of the deleted links had gone dead, I don't know? but they certainly were not all dead. A clear case of removing useful content from Wikipedia. The talk page blanking at the Arcadia 2001 page was approved by an admin to remove a libellous personal attack, which of course exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. The page at Wikipedia:Libel clearly states: "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified." I take offence at the suggestion there was any deception involved. The removal of Darkstar's comment at Talk:List of emulators has been OK'd by him. There is indeed a certain person in New Zealand who has repeatedly vandalized certain pages and written libellous nonsense into talk pages, I have already pointed this out to admins, nothing seems to have been done about it though. I have records of the IP addresses he has used, also his full name and address. Artipol 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any record that supports what you just said. All I saw was a mediated dispute, a bunch of suspicious blanking activity, and some spamming. So I asked what was going on. To be honest the only thing I really care about is the re-spamming revert [103] that you did to the List of emulators article. Are you aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory? And the de-spamming of that article was not vandalism. I am giving you an option to clean up and remove the external links in the List of emulators article. (Requestion 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure what your problem is with that page? Yes, it contains external links, has always contained external links, and will continue to contain external links. Without such links the page would obviously be quite useless. I think you are confusing "external link" with "spam", the two things have nothing to do with each other. All the links that I have tried on that page lead to bona fide emulator homepages, you seem to be implying they all lead to some kind of non-relevant sites? If so, which links? Artipol 06:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The List of emulators article will not "continue to contain external links." You are misinformed about Wikipedia policy. External links are not valuable content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link farm. Please read WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. Thank you. (Requestion 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, delete the entire article, as that is entirely the point of that article. Clearly many people do find it useful, no one else seems to have a problem with it except you. Of course, doing so will reduce the usefulness of Wikipedia, but you obviously don't care about that, it seems clear you would rather ruin Wikipedia than apply common sense. Eg. see WP:Use_common_sense. You're wrong to say they are spam links, you are wilfully using incorrect terminology. Not one of those links is spam. This may be news to you, but there are other sites which have useful resources, not just Wikipedia. Artipol 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link farm and that is policy. (Requestion 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]


workforall.net linkspam[edit]

Socks - all IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium


Domains


Threads



Noticed you were cleaning up workforall.net on several taxation articles. Some of which had them as references and one of which had a footnote. How did you determine that this was not being used appropriately, particularly in the case of the footnote, which seemed to contain relevant information for the statement? Morphh (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your edits, I can now see why you cleaned them up. They were everywhere... I'll take a look at the footnote reference - if found to appropriate, do you have any objection to adding it back in? Morphh (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
164 workforall.net linkspams and User:81.242.58.154 just added another one today. Huge blocks of text with links have been copied and pasted into multiple Wikipedia articles (see the "paste dup text" note above). This mass insertion of duplicate text back in the summer 2006 has propagated into a mess. I've tried to clean it up as well as I could but a Tax article expert needs to do some double checking. Here are some examples of the duplicate text to watch out for: [106] pasted four times, [107] pasted eight times, [108] pasted seven times. The links have even worked their way into citations and references. The workforall.net spamming is one of the most intertwined cases I've encountered. Blacklisting will be requested. (Requestion 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
All of the above IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium. Today the active User:80.201.26.155 added a couple more paste dup spams and the situation has now evolved into the pasting of duplicate text into talk pages. Tomorrow it will probably be a different dynamic IP address. See the User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction for more information. (Requestion 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The final warning was violated with this [109] edit. (Requestion 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
New special purpose User:Bully-Buster-007 account with a harassment campaign agenda. Great. (Requestion 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A one week block turned into an infinite block for User:Bully-Buster-007. Unfortunately a fearsome multi-headed sock-hydra was spawned as its replacement. (Requestion 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I left you a question at Talk:Economic data. Can you please respond there? Cheers, --Ioannes Pragensis 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just did. More workforall.net fallout. (Requestion 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction[edit]

For context of this rambling diatribe see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#workforall.net.

Particularly the valuable contributions of WorkForAll.

http: //workforall.net/ is a serious and leading think-tank in Brussels. Their contributions provide information on a great number of socio-economic subjects, some of which have indeed political sensitive implications conflicting with mainstream economic thought. The information they provide is high quality, well researched and well documented, and their posts were a positive contribution to Wikipedia's quality and pluralism.

One or two of their posts would indeed better suite under a different subject. However the indiscriminate mass destruction for this sole reason of all the valuable information they provided has destroyed lots of highly valuable subjects.

Such hasty random destruction without thorough investigation is causing much collateral damage and looks more like vandalism than it helps to fight spam. Such hit-or-miss random destruction in a couple of minutes has the ultimate effect of lowering the overall quality of Wikipedia.

The last thing the Wikipedia community needs is censureship. Wikipedia does not need censors from big media to validate the quality of information. The visitors of Wikipedia are competent enough to evaluate the quality of information provided. Once big media censors take over it will be the end of the unique Wikipedia concept. - unsigned comment by User:80.201.26.155 11:36, 1 May 2007)

The last thing Wikipedia needs is to have large sections of duplicate text copied and pasted into multiple articles. This goes for talk space too. You pasted the above comment into 5 different places [110] [111] [112] [113] [114], once is sufficient. I am a surgical spam fighter, there was no "such hit-or-miss random destruction", and the collateral damage has been minimized. I did my best effort to remove all the blocks of duplicate text that you've added during the past year. Unfortunately this intertwined mess of duplicate text has propagated and morphed into different sections over time. Complete clean up could take years. Note that I delete big media linkspam too, so just because you're the underdog doesn't give you any more right to spam Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPAM for some helpful information. (Requestion 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If your spam fight is surgical as you pretend, you must have an answer as what concrete Wikipedia rule was not respected at the link added under Talk:Economic_data. The information linked to the most comprehensive economic data source on the internet. By vandalising this post you are witholding the Wikipedia community easy access to worldwide data sources. In the future please take the effort to find a better or more comprehensive site before you destroy the information.
I still miss your answer as to what contributed more to the Wikipedia' quality: providing the link or destroying it ? Please stop your the mass destruction of valuable information under the pretext of spam. Let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves decide what is valuable information and what is not. Each link you destroy is one more option you steal from Wikipedia users.
I only see that many users have already complained about your indiscriminate techniques. Please stop them, as they are doing the quality of Wikipedia no good. - unsigned comment by User:80.201.26.155 (16:56, 1 May 2007)
Check the log for the Economic data page. I didn't didn't delete your recent link addition, someone else did. (Requestion 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is you still use carpet bombing techniques to fight guerillia. It didn't work in Vietnam, it wont work against spam either. Your recent removal of all the post provided by Workforall for one single supposed (and discussed) abuse removed very valuable as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.26.155 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop carpet bombing my talk page with the repeated pasting of duplicate text. It is almost impossible for me to reply to your questions when you do this. Also new comments get added at the bottom and remember to sign your posts with a (~~~~) tag. (Requestion 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I conclude from Your remark "I didn't didn't delete your recent link addition, someone else did." that you finally agree that this deletion was illigitimate and that at least part of the Workforall postings contain valuable information and should be reverted.
Please let us know how and on which place we can finish this time consuming discussion on a sensable way. It is not my intention to spam. I hope it is not your intention to vandalise.' - signed User:80.201.26.155
I did not imply any sort of legitimacy of the workforall.net external link or your mass duplicative text pasting. I was simply stating a fact that someone else deleted your most recent edit and that your rage is completely misguided. About continuing this conversation, my talk page is a busy place I suggest User talk:80.201.26.155 or Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link, your choice. (Requestion 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please note that http: //workforall.net has no commercial intentions whatsowever, so we have no interest in spamming. We are a think-tank that provides information (raw data as well as analysis) on a great number of socio-economic subjects.
All we want is to give Wikipedia readers easy access to this well doccumented information, wich may not allways is not mainstream economic thought. So please advise me how to do this without offending "spam" wachers.
please enlight me in these concrete cases :
1. Do you consider a link as below approprioate under the subject "ECONOMIC DATA" ?.
2. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "DATA" ?
3. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "STATISTICS" ?
4. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "REGRESSION ANALYSIS" ?
==Data Sources==
* META STATISTICS PORTAL. Survey to comparative international socio-economic Data. This data portal of The Brussels Free Institute for Economic Research provides convenient access to data sources around the Globe. The portal gives handy surveys of data provided by the OECD, Eurostat, the Groningen Development Centre, the Economics Web Institute, the Pacific Exchange Rate Service, as well as all major U.S. Economic Data Sources: USDL, USDA, Census Bureau, White House, the Penn World Tables etc. --217.136.93.7 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your 4 questions is that the link is not appropriate and it is considering spamming to add it to those articles. It is also considered spamming to copy and paste that paragraph of text into multiple articles like you did here [115] [116] [117] [118] [119] [120] [121] [122] [123] [124]. The exact same text pasted 10 times!? That is just completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (Requestion 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I now see that someone of our staff has indeed been a bit overenthousiastic in repeating the link where it not very relevant. We are very sorry about that and we make sure this wont happen anymore. But you can't be serious about banning the link completely even under the titles DATA and ECONOMIC DATA. A third independant party Ioannes Pragensis (User:Ioannes_Pragensis) expliclitely approved the link in the debate on Talk:Economic_data and expressed the very usefullness under the title "economic data". Banning the link everewhere as You propose has degenerated in spam fundamentalism which is doing more bad than good, and where all common sense has gone. As I understand it the purpose of spam fight, blocking and banning is NOT to punish offenders who may have done this by ignorance of wikipedia rules but to avoid further spam and to make Wikipedia better. Banning the link under "Economic Data" is not making Wikipedia better but worse.
1. I repeat my suggestion to find a better or more comprehensive data survey before you blank the information. It took our staff 2 months to find this amount data from sources dispersed all over the net, and to organise all the information in an easy to use and 100% free survey. The Data portal http://workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html is simply a unique and free service and source of information for anyone in search for economic data. You deny Wikipedia visitors al least 30.000US$ worth of research and knowledge by banning this link.
2. I repeat my question as to which precise rule on WP:EL or WP:SPAM this link would break if repeated under the titles DATA and ECONOMIC DATA.
Please reconsider. Cheers --217.136.93.7 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two quotes that should answer your question about which precise rules were broken. WP:EL says "there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Next, WP:SPAM says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."(Requestion 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please note WP:EL also says "What to link: There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is it accessible to the reader? Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means."
Is http://workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html not useful, tasteful, informative, factual ?
Have You already found a better link offering the same mount of service and information ?
If it pleases You we gladly admit we did not kwow all the WP rules when posting, and are sorry about errors made.
But please reconsider and take in consideration spam fight should not make Wikipedia worse but better.
If not, spam figt degenerates in spam fundamentalism. cheers... --217.136.93.7 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By adding external links you are attempting to promote your own website / organization. This is a major conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI which says to avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)." (Requestion 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The rule You cite above is not absolute and is irrelevant in this case. The rule clearly states "avoid". It does not state "are forbidden". If it would have stated "forbiddden" this rule would indeed provide the justification for banning every single link in Wikipedia, without which WP would loose its attractiveness and usefullness and fast become irrellevant. WP:EL cannot be more explicit, precise and absolute in the justification for adding a link such as http: //workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html under the question: "What to link: you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."'
By blanking this link You are indeed denying Wikipedia users easy access to valuable information. You failed to produce a more comprehensive data portal before deleting this one as we now suggested three times. Blanking without providing an alternative goes well beyond the purpose of spam fighting, as it decreases the the quality of Wikipedia rather than increasing it. This is spam fundmentalism of the worst kind which it is doing WP far more bad than good.
Is it so difficult to admit that mass blanking techniques are as inapropriate to fight spam as carpet bombing is to fight terrorism? Don't you realise the amount of collateral dammage mass blanking is inflicting? Spam fundamentalism is indeed far more destructive than spam itself: every Wikipedia user is just one click away from deciding a link is spam, whereas he might never find, or it might take him years to find the information spam fundamentalists destroy every day. Everey reasonable doctor stops the medication when he sees the cure is worse than the illness.
We ask You a last time to reconsider and direct Your efforts to real spam; irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defines spam. Therefor use precision techniques, not weapons of mass destruction. There is still plenty of constructive work to do. --217.136.93.7 12:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requestion blanked reasonable arguments above without justification. Are You insisiting on mediation ? --217.136.93.7 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't blank any of your text. I did deactivate some of your workforall.net links. I'm a spam fighter and I can't have lots of active external links on my talk page. I don't want the spammers calling me a spammer now do I? If you think mediation will help then go for it. You should remember that I am not the only editor or the most recent editor who had to delete your linkspam. (Requestion 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I reverted you edit. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments as you did here, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.--Hu12 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hu12. (Requestion 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
At the moment I wrote the complaint about the removal of my reply, the arguments were indeed deleted, which is bad practice Hu12 confirms, whoever did it. So I had to revert it, and am glad the arguments are now left unaltered.
I see that Requestion does not further object to the statements therein, and now accepts that
1. The link to the data portal was appropriate as to WP rules, that its blanking was therefor illigitimate, and can be considered as a clear case of vandalism such as defined on WP:VAND. I assume this accounts for warning as to WP habits to stop further vandalism in similar cases. Please contradict me if I am wrong.
2. that spam fundamentalism using indiscriminate mass blanking is far more destructive than spam itself and the remedies used by Requestion being worse than the illness, common sense obliges to stop such indiscriminate practices. — 80.201.19.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There is no consensus for adding your links. Any contribution for which there is no consensus, unless elsewise required by the accepted policies and guidelines, may be reverted until consensus can be established otherwise. So far, to put it mildly, rough consensus seems to be that the information you want to add should not be included. This is a perfectly legitimate part of Wikipedia's editing procedure and not vandalism, so kindly stop canvassing against this user. Femto 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to ad new info, but revert a ligitimate link (see above) which was vandalised. (see : WP:VAND Types of vandalism: Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.)
--80.201.19.94 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the diff. Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking about. (Requestion 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You guys do not even seem to understand the basic logic behind WP procedures. Adding is about making a totally new, unverified and untested information. It is logic for such unverified additions consensus should be obtained. Reverting a is about undoing illecit vandalism to well established information which was read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP Readers, and which should not have been deleted without consensus in the first place. --87.64.93.128 11:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [removed bolding of entire paragraph Femto 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Another Belgian IP. I wonder who that is. Femto 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we neighbours ? WVL. --87.64.93.128 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part about "replacing entire established pages with one's own version" does not mean what you appear to think it does. Let's play along though: The established version was this one. Then this copy-and-pasted piece of spam was added, and Requestion reverted it providing proper explanation as defined by the policy that you cite. An IP replaced it with its own version again without consensus. So you say by your definition you vandalized. Okay, I'm fine with that. Femto 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to this precise of the case under "Economic Data" please tell me why You oppose to its content. The information therin is relevant and verifiable, and the external link is fully compatible with WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."' I thout there was consensus by now about the value of theis link.
The note above was rather refering to all the other well established information Requesion removed without gaining consent. see : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#workforall.net
I allready indicated I shall gladly consent to removal of the links where they are found unappropriate. I'll defend them wher they are approproate. The point of the wole discussion is in the title : Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction. His mass blanking techniques are as inapropriate to fight spam as carpet bombing is to fight terrorism. Don't you realise the amount of collateral dammage his mass blanking is inflicting? Spam fundamentalism is indeed far more destructive than spam itself. --87.64.93.128 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again, the comments at that WT:WPSPAM #workforall.net link above actually implies consensus. Another important point is that no other editors have added your links and text back. Heck, you haven't even tried to revert it back. That's consensus multiplied times 3. (Requestion 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually when you add in Femto and Hu12's comments here, it is consensus times 4! (Requestion 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
please dont misunderstand me putting femto's message in the correct order as endorsing its content.
please do not misunderstand me not wanting to start an edit war at this point as a consent with your vandalism.
to make my position quite clear i explicitely express my oppostion to all your vandalism such as defined in WP:VAND Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. by this statement . --87.64.93.128 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added another workforall.net link today [125] and a completely independent editor deleted it [126] with the comment of "rv link spam." Then yet a different editor gave you a spam1 warning [127] for that edit. I suppose you'll just chalk this up as more vandals conspiring against you? (Requestion 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
First accusing me of consenting for not reverting your blanking, and then accusing me of spam for revering is not very logical. By the way: this spam1 warning looks to me very much as one of these computer-generated messages that was misfired by accident: Ioannes Pragensis first found the Link very appropriate and usefull, and now he blanks it. Strange logic your automated messages are following. see : Talk:Economic_data By the way: You did not yet answer my question what the consensus implied. --87.64.93.128 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it is called "deleting" an external link or comment, "blanking" is something completely different. Second, Ioannes Pragensis only gave you the spam1 warning, someone else reverted your edit. Thirdly, those are not automated messages. Finally, to answer your question, the consensus is that your interpretations of the WP:RULES are very very wrong. (Requestion 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is there much interpretation possible in WP:EL instructions "What to link": when it says you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.. Can the rule be more explicit, precise and concrete and affirmative than what it says ? - unsigned comment by (User:87.64.93.128 22:56, 6 May 2007)
Can you stop quoting "then link, by all means" since it doesn't say that. Another mistake you are making is ignoring all the other things WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM say. Even if WP:EL said what you think it says, you are not allowed to ignore everything else. (Requestion 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Can you Stop interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should avoid linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more precise [WP:EL]instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, concrete and affirmative in inviting users to link in a case a source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article?
Can you Stop assuming bad faith every time users link to a reliable source. Can you stop assuming their intend is to promote a site when all they want is to provide relevant information? Can you please start to assume good faith such as WP policy tells you to?
Can you please stop your link-spam fundamentalism and start to use common sence? Links are most valuable tools for users in their search for information. If it is your intent to improve WP then stop your mass destruction, and use precision tools to destroy the guenine spam we all despise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.150.59 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The answer is no to all 3 of your requests. I'd also like to point out that WP:AGF says "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (Requestion 08:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is that a final decision on which You reflected well? --81.240.150.59 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your requests only apply to you and the answer is still no. Sorry but you ran out of good faith a long time ago. (Requestion 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Your answer above is not very clear. Please be precise and specify your position on our 3 questions under the 4 cases below: (9 answers please):
Question 1 : Are You prepared to stop interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should avoid linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more precise [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, concrete and affirmative in inviting users to link in a case a source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article?
1.1. - as a general principle for users in general .
1.2 - as to the 5 cases described in User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Spamstar_of_Glory
1.3 - as to the submissions we made
1.4 - Does your position under 1.3 apply for all our submissions our ar You willing to consider some cases; if yes which ones ??.
Question 2 : Are you willing to stop assuming bad faith every time users link to a reliable source. Can you stop assuming their intend is to promote a site when all they want is to provide relevant information? Can you please start to assume good faith such as WP policy tells you to?
2.1. - as a general principle for users in general .
2.2 - as to the 5 cases described in User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Spamstar_of_Glory
2.3 - as to the submissions we made
2.4 - Does your position under 2.3 apply for all our submissions our ar You willing to consider some cases. if yes which ones ??.
Question 3. Are You willing to reconsider your link-spam fundamentalism and start to use common sence?
--Bully-Buster-007 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not answering your questions. Go away. (Requestion 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


OK, that is the second time you've falsely accused me of deleting your comments. Show me the diff. Also please stop claiming that I accept your point of view. I don't agree with you. Nope, not vandalism. You are interpreting WP:VAND incorrectly. (Requestion 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion over removed parts of the debate is closed. Maybe it was User:Hu12 who accidently removed it. It was restored an that is good enough for me.
Please keep to the point. Please give precise arguments why you disagree about me calling your action vandalism. The definition of vandalism is clear and precise: see WP:VAND Types of vandalism : Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.
In the meantime please stop all vandalism, accusations and calls for blacklisting on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#workforall.net till concensus is reached.
Please also stop cyberbullying newcomers with most vague references to regulations which are not applicable. Please in future be precise with referring to regulations. You are chasing bona fide contributers away. Or is that the intention of your action ? ( see: Bullying
--80.201.19.94 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:CONSENSUS has already been reached. You also aren't a newcomer, you've been editing Wikipedia since October 2005 [128]. (Requestion 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am not pleading for reasonable conduct only for our own sake, but on behalf of the hundreds of bona fide newcomers whose contibutions were vandalised on basis of the wrong assumption external links are per definition wrong and which were scared away by ciberbullying. --87.64.93.128 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. At this point you are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.--Hu12 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the concensus imply? Let us be precise and not not rush to vague conclusions at a point where the debate becomes really interesting for providing a few precise guidelines for the conduct of overenthousiastic spammers as well as overenthousiastic spam fighters.
Let us summerise a few undisputed conclusions so far:
- Users are encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia.
- External links are VERY welcome when the content of an external source is relevant and reliable but is too long and cannot be summarized in an article.
- In a case of doubt it is preferable NOT to remove an external links as blanking a suspected spam could be far more destructive than spam itself. Users are indeed just one click away from deciding a link is spam, whereas it might take them years to find the link to the information destroyed.
- Blanking all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus is vandalism.
- Removal of spam should be precison work.
- Cyber bullying newcomers is impoper conduct
-Please correct me where I am wrong. --87.64.93.128 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was recently a victim of an anti-spam attack by Requestion. I thought I’d chime in on this topic for whatever it’s worth. I state up front that I don’t hold any particular malice toward Requestion for his or her actions toward me, and I freely and openly admit that I deliberately spammed my website on Wiki several years ago in a self defense mechanism, since many of my competitors were doing the same. Now that SEs apply the nofollow tag this action by me is no longer necessary and hasn’t been for some time.
However, the fact remains that the market my business addresses is thinly traveled and there are gaping holes in much Wiki content that applies to it. Much of the information missing in Wiki is treated in detail in application notes on our website, which assume a general tone of unbiased information with minimal or absolutely no commercial content except that they appear on a commercial site. Over the last several months I have placed a handful of links to appropriate places on our website to help full in these blanks. Some Wiki editors have removed a few because they didn’t believe they were germane. The balance was removed by Requestion as outright spam. In the former case, I disagree with the narrow interpretation but I’m willing to let the hole in Wiki content remain unfilled. Even when the content is considered spam because of a tangential product reference I’m willing to let it go. However, when a link contains absolutely no commercial content, fits perfectly with the Wiki Article, fills in blanks not covered there, survived several spam sweeps for many months, and is then removed under the pretense of spam, I begin to wonder what’s going on. Content in one of these links was crucial to prevent explosive destruction of instruments and outright personal injury, which I have actually seen first hand. Requestion, sighting Wiki spam policy, claims that the link was self-serving since I linked to my own company’s website. In one hour I could find a dozen customers who would be willing to link to it instead. Are those links okay? If so then Wiki should know better than to create and maintain a policy that is so blatantly unenforceable. In this last case I invested considerable time and effort to reword the content and redesign the graphics so as not to violate Wiki’s copyright policy, and placed it directly into the article. I did this because of the critical importance of the subject, but I doubt I’ll go to that effort again. Why? Because I did it once already on our website, and it seems counterproductive to say the same thing two different ways. Aren’t hyperlinks a fundamental and invaluable Internet tool for this very reason?
Wiki and Requestion are free to create, interpret and apply spam policy as each chooses. At the same time, this spirit should be tempered with the unconceited realization that much valuable, relevant, and unbiased content exits on commercial sites. The External Links section of each article exists, I assume, for this reason. Why not evaluate the content of external links based on the merit of the information they provide as opposed to who placed them there? I occurs to me that Wiki readers would only benefit from such a reasonable approach. Rwl10267 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rwl10267. I find your extremely honest comment saddening. I thought we had made so much progress (see WP:GRIEF). I even considered you one of my success stories. I guess I was wrong. I guess I need to try harder next time. (Requestion 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Requestion, in fact I am one of your success stories! I couldn't and wouldn't have gone through my editing effort if not for you. But sorry to disappoint, I don't fit the Wiki 5-stage model for grieving. I'm still here and still fully appreciate Wiki content -- with or without my links. I'll embellish Wiki content from time to time, but I hope you understand that wholesale rewrites of material that already exists in a form completely devoid of commercial content is not very productive. I further hope that you reconsider the last paragraph of my previous post and apply your considerable influence to make such pointless efforts obsolete. No hard feelings. I know you have a job to do. I just wish you weren’t so…..enthusiastic ;-)) Rwl10267 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Rwl10267, this has nothing to do anymore with the quality of Wikipedia. What once began as a legitimate struggle against guenine spam ( irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defined it), and which we all despise has since long degenerated. First in linkspam fundamentalism banning any external link (however relevant it may be), then in censorship of content they dislike, and since a couple of months in a war for power between the bullies and bona fide contributors who soon give up their struggle for survival before the ruthless vandalism of the bullies.
Look at the long history of mass destructions here Special:Contributions/Requestion. See how it gradually escalated and degenerated, and how every case of vandalism give them more confidence to vandalise others. See how it escalated till they found they could challenge phd's from the worlds finest universities as they did here Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet.In the end those guys believe they are god, as one victim put it.
When even links to a PhD of the Cambridge University like this http://spam.ffconsultancy.com/free/thesis.html. is considered as spam, I wonder what will be left to link. When Requestion will have finished his censorship vocation we end up with a wikipedi-ette a in pocket format; Handy I agree, but not very informative.
The techniques these guys use: mass-destruction of constructive contributions, unappropriate warnings, intimidation, threats with banning, boycots and blacklisting constitute guenine terror and have all the characteristics of cyber-bullying such as wonderfully described here: Bullying. Read what motivates the sick minds of bullies here Bullying#Characteristics_of_bullies. Read how they attribute each other rewards for ferocity here User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Spamstar_of_Glory
Dont expect reasonabilty from them by being friendly. Dont expect reasonable arguments. Each time you ask these guys for detailed justification, they fail to produce concrete evidence. Dont believe their escalating warnings. Dont believe their threats with blocking and blacklisting. Ignore all their automatically generated messages. Dont believe their false accusations of improper behaviour on the slightest technical error you make. Dont lose time reading pages and pages of irrelevant instructions their vague automatically generated instructions direct you to.
External links are indeed a perfectly integrating part of WP. WP instructions cannot be clearer as under WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relavant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. --87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL doesn't say "then link, by all means.'" (Requestion 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm afraid you're entitled to your own opinion, twisted as it is. You're not going to change anybody's opinion here though, just like we don't seem going to be able to change yours. If you have questions about particular parts of Wikipedia's editing practice, feel free to start a discussion with the general public at the appropriate policy pages, or if the current consensus isn't to your liking you can even try to get it changed.
I think any further targeting of this user's talkpage with accusations of vandalism or attacks against how spam is handled in general can only serve the purpose of harassment and personal retaliation against the one who simply was the first to remove your spam. He won't be the last. You feel bullied because your edits got removed? Boohoo. You agree to it with every single editbox that you use: if you don't want your spam get edited mercilessly, do not submit it. Femto 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the harassers feel harrassed by reasonable arguments and concrete evidence? I only wanted to warn other victims about methods used by this gang. The debate would have been closed long time ago if you accepted to be reasonable such as I proposed six times in the most friendly manner. After all the harrassement I went through I'll still consider abandoning the debate as soon as all illecit vandalising to our contributions and those of a few other victims we feel deep sympathy with has been undone and the boycot on all these constructive contributors is lifted. (see :WP:VAND: Types of vandalism: Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.). If You think more people should learn about this discussion; please feel free to link it wherever You want. Maybe You could start on your own talk page. Some of Your own victims might be very interested in this debate. I do not claim any copyright. --81.240.150.59 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what. Most editors find it perfectly appropriate when disputed additions are removed until consensus is reached that their inclusion is encyclopedically appropriate. Doubly so when it's a mere web directory entry that reads like an advertisement, and is copy-and-pasted conflict-of-interest spam to boot; a mere pointer leading away from Wikipedia whose fundamental goal is to create free content. We're not here for building a directory to content that is controlled by others, no matter how good. Sure, that takes more work than simply dumping links to yourself everywhere. Femto 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not again reverse the logic of WP procedures. You guys are really hard to learn. I already explained above adding is about making a totally new, unverified and untested information. Sensable users agree that for such unverified additions consensus should be obtained. Our claim for reverting is about undoing illecit vandalism to well established information which was already read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP Readers, and which should not have been blancked by requestion without consensus in the first place. --81.240.150.59 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, we must be all retarded, because your claims make less and less sense. The removal of your spam reflects consensus and is not vandalism (on the other hand, persistent reinclusion is vandalism). What "vandalism to well established information" are you referring to? You know how to link a diff. If you want to continue your accusations, you must provide specific evidence, or you will be blocked for harassment. Femto 12:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is not it. That is one more case of qualified intimidation, and on more error in your concepts. Above we expressed our explicit opposition to the blanking on several occasions, and the last time no longer ago than yesterday. So there there is absolutely no concensus. Do you guys really think that an agreement between a group of conspiring individuals can constitute a consensus against the opinion of others? Please re-read Concensus. Please learn how to gain our willing consent. Bullying us with treats, boycots, banning, ciber terror and insults are not very helpfull. Reasonability are better ways to achieve our willing consent. Which brings us back to central point of the debate: Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction,and be reasonable. From our side we are still willing to be reasonable, we only expect reasonability from your side. --81.240.150.59 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stage three, now that's progress. "Concensus" isn't the policy, Wikipedia:Consensus is. And it says "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome". Your willing consent? What about my willing consent? What about the consent of everybody else who disagreed with your spam? Yes, when something is removed and everybody except the one who added it can agree it was spam, that's consensus all right.
Okay: Next time, you don't ignore the first friendly spam warning, and don't reinclude disputed edits, and you won't get insulted with second, third, and final warnings. Next time, you don't attack other editors for not adhering to your twisted notion of how Wikipedia should be run, and they won't terrorize you by defending themselves. Next time, you don't spam for your site, and those evil, mean other editors won't have to remove it. That is reasonable, yes? I knew we can agree. Femto 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


See these Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they contain some hard truths for the workforall.net crowd:
[comment: Actually I'm not quite clear how much of a "crowd" there really is behind these IPs... Femto 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  1. ""Types of vandalism"" - spam is defined as vandalism
  2. ""What vandalism is not"" -- Requestion's actions are not vandalism
  1. ""Wikipedia is not a soapbox for":
    1. "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."
    2. "Self-promotion"
    3. "Advertising"
  2. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
--A. B. (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not copy and paste large parts of tekst in a debate. Please be precise as to what rule you refer to in this debate. We do not feel the need to comment on all WP rules you object to us here. If You would have read the debate attentively you would have kwnown the discussion about legitimity of external links has come to the point that you should not be interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link this source in case the source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article. --Bully-Buster-007 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even bother responding. The above comment is in fact duplicate talkspam that was also posted here [129]. The middle section is identical word-for-word. I feel insulted, we don't even get the decency of receiving original fuming rants anymore. (Requestion 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just did a search and the phrase "cannot be more explicit" has been repeated five times on this talk page. It is followed by "precise and affirmative", "precise and absolute", or "concrete and affirmative". See the pattern? I feel duped. (Requestion 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


The thread continues here: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Bully-Buster-007&oldid=130235756#Welcome.2C (Requestion 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The following "inappropriate warning notices" were deleted [130] as per User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#One_week_block. I sure hope this ordeal is finally over but I have a strange feeling that it will all startup again next week. (Requestion 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The tranquility did not even last a single day and the User_talk:Bully-Buster-007 block has now become infinite. Just like cutting off the head of the Hydra, two have grown back in its place, and then two more. I fear that we have created a monster and before the week is done every Belgian IP address will be consumed by this madness. (Requestion 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Hallo. I am mediator1, and I am in the business of mediating in conflicts and disputes. I was contacted by The Work and Wealth For All staff to make an ultimate proposal to come to a reasonable concensus in this escalating conflict User:Requestion versus User:Bully-Buster-007 (see: [131]

More detail on Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Freedom_of_speech.--80.201.214.117 19:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC) aka User:Mediator1[reply]

Hello User:Mediator1. I don't understand your proposal. A consensus has been reached, workforall.net was blacklisted, and a couple user accounts have been infinitely blocked. The issue appears closed to me. What do you mean by "escalating conflict?" (Requestion 19:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Foie Gras - goldarths.com linkspam[edit]



I reverted your removal of a relevant link to an OpEd piece on the subject of the article. Please consider the context and the relevance of the links when doing a mass blanket removal of the external linkage. Not all of them are spamlinks. Alex Pankratov 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the context. The current goldarths.com count is 46 linkspams that were added mostly to luxury related articles. All of the above IP addresses are registered to SingNet Pte Ltd in Singapore. (Requestion 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

221.128.147.236's mystery comment[edit]

I understand that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. However in doing your job as an external link cleaning man, you seem to have forgotten that valuable external links relevant to the subject do not count as link spam. Please educate yourself on the article topic before vandalising users' contributions and discouraging them from enhancing Wikipedia. - unsigned comment by (User:221.128.147.236 18:22, 3 May 2007)

It appears that you are unhappy because I deleted an external link of yours. Unfortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. I checked your contribution log and I haven't touched any of your edits so this is a complete mystery. Great, now I have random IP addresses accusing me of vandalism without any form of context. (Requestion 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Notability of software[edit]

As you seem to have doubts about the notability of Hugin (software), can I ask you what your criteria for notability in free software are? Rl 08:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is over at Talk:Hugin_(software)#Notability. (Requestion 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugin_(software) with a strange rational. Not sure what is going on but several panorama stitchers have been nominated for AfD. Looks like some sort of covert battle is underway. (Requestion 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

S-Parameters[edit]

Hello Requestion,

I added a hyperref to an Agilent application note at the bottom of the S-Parameters page, under the bibliography. I didn't add the reference itself, I simply made it clickable, having read the article and looked up the reference. The app-note is relevant and helpful, as it goes into more detail than the wiki page. It's also a freely available referencable source, for the academics out there. I'm in no way related to Agilent, and the app-note doesn't try to sell any particular product. You removed the link and posted a warning on my talk page. Having read the wiki pages in the warning, I don't really understand why it was removed. Are all links to commercial sites bad? Arthurtech 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (formerly known as 86.21.13.156).[reply]

No, links to commercial sites are fine. There were two reasons why I deleted that link. The first is that we're having a huge problem with Agilent link spam. The second reason is that WP:EL says to avoid linking to documents that require special software such as .PDF files. Sorry about the warning message, I'm going to cross it out right now. (Requestion 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Professional Sound Production[edit]

Hello there! I've noticed that you've been making some significant contributions to Professional sound production related articles. You might be interested in joining the Professional sound production WikiProject, where you can participate in a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production.

GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invite. I'll check out WP:PSP. (Requestion 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia:External links[edit]

You reverted a longstanding version of the introduction. Please do not do it again. See the talk page for the diffs that prove it. Many people, including yourself, seem to be confusing external links with citation/reference links. I notice from your user contributions that you may been confused by this for a long time. --Timeshifter 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the version that has been stable for the past 12 days. I'm not confused. Both WP:EL and WP:CITE deal with external links. (Requestion 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:External links. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Timeshifter 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I'm close to exceeding 3RR then you've broken it since Jossi has already reverted you twice. (Requestion 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
24 hour block for User_talk:Timeshifter#3RR_on_WP:EL. Released early due to effective wikilawyering but was then autoblocked. (Requestion 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


For reference the relevant WT:EL discussion is here Wikipedia talk:External links#Intro is unclear as to difference between external links and reference/citation links. (Requestion 23:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Company7[edit]

Domains


Socks



May I put in a good word for the Company7 website its self. It does maintain an online "museum" of sorts that is a good reference for telescope related articles (I use it a lot my self for such topics). Their reference section seems to meet WP:EL requirements as far as not having obtrusive advertising. Too bad this person who claims to own the place went on a spam offensive. Don't want to sound wishy-washy.... just saying if it comes to a decision of weather bothering to keep them in the blocking queue or not I would say drop them out. Halfblue 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin just spammed a couple other articles today and bumped himself to the front of the queue. It's a lot bigger than just the Questar page. I've lost count of how many articles have been spammed and how many times the final warning has been violated. Why couldn't he listen to everybody's advice and follow the WP:RULES? Company7 has become a huge waste of time and that's why the blocking and blacklisting procedures exist. (Requestion 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure what you meant by front of the queue. I have done all I thought I needed to do to prove the articles are not spam and I have registered to facilitate whatever authentication Wikipedia seems to prefer (I am learning in part through the patient education by some who have edited my contributions).

You Requestion are really setting yourself to be the Inquisition or arbiter of truth and justice, and I think doing it poorly. The fact is thaty any entire article about a company involved in making things for sale, and the linking to their web site can be considered Spam by your definition. I have linked to pages that have nothing to sell anyone. While sites that are more about history and antique instruments such as the Library that my company happens to give of our time and effort to collect, restore, document and illustrate, then host these items on line are done as a public service. I thought it very flattering that Wikipedia chose to take content (albeit without atrribution) from my several sites and use the info to make the Wikipedia articles meet whatever standard you judge them by. You have no real idea what you are talking about when you talk about Company Seven, and Winkipedia policies - if you are enforcing them to the letter seem inconsistent and shortchange truth and balance just as I pointed out several time in the Discussion section of the Questar site.

I have also worked (as a hobby) to create and pay to host (also under my company web site) the site "BosendorferImperial.com", a site dedicated to that particular model of piano. I have nothing to do with selling them or anything else, and I have gathered so much fact that the articles about Bosendorfer too would have to delete several more facts if Wikipedia is to comply with legal Copyright policies. I would prefer to have you or a higher authority look over those sites to see if they are spam or just downright good and informative reading.

I don't care about selling anything at Company7.com. We do not have on line ordering, don't need the consumer business to do well, etc. But we do operate that shop and the web sites with profits from our Government work as a public service. In fact it has qualified as a non-profit organization but I choose not to take the tax dodge. Most of what is in that showroom is not for sale at all, since most of it is museum. By those standards, I can not see how you can write articles about companies, and not permit links to helpful articles as I host. And I do not see how Wikipedia can link to sites that are not as technically accurate as mine, and yet not even bother to mention a page at Company7 when it is used as a reference.

Now get on with your blocking, but first give me the opportunity to advise what to cut from those articles so that Wikipedia does not infringe on our copyrights.

OOPS! and sorry about the repeated, numerous edits - I keep forgetting to try the Show Preview option; darn and I was just starting to learn Wikipedia. Martincc 9:21 ET 18 May 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincc (talk • contribs)

OK, I will do as you wish. I have a question. Three editors have spent a lot of time attempting to explain the Wikipedia rules to you. Why do you keep breaking them? Do you not understand them? Or do you think the rules don't apply to you? (Requestion 19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1&oldid=1182634166"