Wikipedia talk : WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jul 1

keeps adding links to

which is a pointless digg-like with health related gossips,

and, more importantly, to these online prescription drugs sellers.

The links to the first and the last sites have been removed, but I think these domains require your attention. Zorbid (talk) 14:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted, thanks --Herby ^{talk thyme} 14:09, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

gardenmandy.com

Adsense pub-2302677126863467

Spammers

MER-C 12:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UserSummary - removed this entry from the page. --Versa geek 05:57, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of ignored warnings: Template:Deferblack --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now blacklisted. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:04, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

76.93.93.177 felt the need to blank this section... MER-C 05:14, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"The Mesothelioma Society"

This recently spammed site adds nothing of value to our Mesothelioma article. I see zero useful, reliable content to supplement owhat we already have. It doesn't look like anyone else is linking to it (other than a comment spammer). Interestingly, a reader can't tell where this "Mesothelioma Society" is located or even, without a subpoena, who registered its domain name.

Domains

Accounts adding one or more of these links

See discussion at Talk:Mesothelioma#Removal of The Mesothelioma Society --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Ir ia unclear to me how much A.B. has even read this site. I have not found a better gloassary on any other site, their treatment discussion is excellent, and they have a good unbiased list of doctors. I am adding it back. Please do not delete this link again.

How does one deal with a user who does not know the difference between a spam site and a legitimate site?

JamesHMitchell (talk) 15:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The behaviour of adding back a link in such a way is seen as disruptive. The lack of transparency of the site is also a concern. The fact that IPs have also placed links to the site is an issue. Take them all together & you have behaviour which we describe as spamming. --Herby ^{talk thyme} 15:55, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Compare texts:

http://www.baronandbudd.com/legal_services/mesothelioma_asbestos/exposure "© 2008, Baron & Budd, P.C." (law firm)
- www.themesotheliomasociety.com/risk-of-asbestos-exposure-job-sites-trades-health-hazards "Copyright © 2007 The Mesothelioma Society"
  - Compare the first 274 words
http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/factsheet/Sites-Types/mesothelioma (not copyrighted)
- www.themesotheliomasociety.com/mesothelioma-asbestos-cancer-facts-and-figures
http://www.mesotheliomanews.com/blog/uncategorized/2008/02/28/update-on-the-proposed-asbestos-ban/ "© 2008, Baron & Budd, P.C." (again)
- www.themesotheliomasociety.com/news-mesothelioma
hubpages.com/hub/Asbestos-Cancer---Facts-and-Historical-Information
1. www.themesotheliomasociety.com/about
  - compare third paragraph of the hubpages.com page
2. www.themesotheliomasociety.com/category/asbestos/asbestos-exposure
  - Compare the "Mesothelioma Society's" third paragraph with the hubpages page's second paragraph. The plagiarism even includes the same grammatical mistake: "All to often, individuals…"

See:

When someone fills out the contact form requesting help on the "Society's" website, who gets it? It's worth a lot of money to American asbestos lawyers looking for new clients. The same is true for leads from the fentanyl and celebrex web sites; both drugs are now involved in expensive litigation in American courts. To get a sense of this "market" for web traffic and new legal clients, search Google for each of these terms, then look at the Google ads on the right side of the results page: Fentanyl, Mesothelioma.

Also, note the text of fentanyladvisor.com's privacy policy page:

www.fentanyladvisor.com/privacy
- "Not Found… Sorry, but you are looking for something that isn't here."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:42, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

For a sense of the value of web leads, asbestos lawyers are reportedly paying $46.44 for just a click on some mesothelioma Adsense ads. Consider how much more they'd pay for the actual contact data of individuals seeking help?

See also this discussion among mesothelioma site-owners, keeping in mind that they are discussing primarily ad clicks, not much more valuable referral data (names, addresses, etc.)

Blacklist? Given my conflict with this person, I'm going to let someone else make the call. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:44, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spam.zhiweinet.com

A couple of days ago saw Template:IPSummary adding a number of links to Chinese pages to various computing articles. They've been getting reverted but the user returned and added another today. Probably worth keeping an eye on this one and seeing if they take the hint/read the welcome.

Caomhin (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spam.irixtech.com

Link added to Sun Certified Professional [43] by new user Template:UserSummary (first/only edit)

AdSense ID: pub-4790583614959846

Caomhin (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Crocodile Oil

This article was created by the SPA Rhysc. Most of the content of unreferenced jargon has been moved onto the talk page. You can see from the creator's user page that he is the importer of a product made from Crocodile oil. See the talk page for other information available on the web about this product. If you try searching for "Crocodile oil" you will discover that other that it has no notability. I tagged this page for speedy delete on grounds of spam, but the admin who looked at it didn't agree and recommended I take it through the AfD. almost-instinct 11:12, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

University of Iowa student-developed ebook spam

Template:UserSummary CliffC (talk) 20:01, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Pianomanusa and sheetmusicarchive.net

Allright, let's try this again. Template:UserSummary (and to a somewhat less degree Template:UserSummary) have repeatedly been adding links to the site, sheetmusicarchive.net. Now, this site does have SOME free downloads, however, much of the music requires payment. In addition, this music -- public domain scans -- has the stipulation "PDF files made by the SMA are copyrighted by SheetMusicArchive.net, and may not be sold, re-distributed, or used to derive other PDF files, without express written authorization.", which I believe is incorrect for PD music; one furthur issue against it in the context of WP:EL is that there are a large number of completely free archives, where one can get most if not all of the music offered at SMA, thus making it redundant. At this point of going against consensus, from not just my own deleting of the links, but also User:87.9.235.22 as well as the admin who looked into it when I posted to ANI, User:SarekOfVulcan, I believe these two accounts are simply trying to draw people to their paysite to make money. I *did* post this before on this page but got no response; it's since gotten quite an amount worse, as it were, with a large number of reversions. Anyone? ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:38, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Defermetablack MER-C 08:01, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've added the site to the blacklist, but could one of you check Special:Linksearch/*.sheetmusicarchive.net? I'm not sure about reverting them here. --Erwin85 (talk) 08:13, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.pyroradio.com

http://spam.caribbeanentertainment.com

Spammers

MER-C 11:57, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean festival spam

Sites spammed

Template:Spamlink

http://spam.afiwi.com

Template:Spamlink

http://spam.2pacvsbiggie.com

Template:Spamlink

http://spam.blackhistorydaily.com

Template:Spamlink

http://spam.westpalmbeachcarnival.com

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

Template:IPSummary

MER-C 12:31, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A Kahn Design

Looks like a slow drip nuisance on the wiki here. Flagged through Template:IPSummary

Edit to Cosworth adding EL to fairly empty website Template:LinkSummary
Edit to Bentley where Kahn Design claimed ownership of the company

User contributions also show a history of vandalism to assorted articles.

Associated domains:
Template:LinkSummary
Template:LinkSummary
Template:LinkSummary
Template:LinkSummary
Template:LinkSummary
Template:LinkSummary
Template:LinkSummary

AdSense ID: pub-4698752902234354

And annoyingly loud voice over when you load the design page (the mute is a black on black icon in the top right if anyone feels brave and checks with speakers on).

Caomhin (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Alpro entry

Template:LinkSummary The entry on Alpro soy milk is a straightforward ad. Not cool! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mssclarity (talk • contribs) 11:41, 5 July 2008 (UTC) mistress clarity (talk) 11:47, 5 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell this article was written in good faith by regular editors, which is sort of surprising. Certainly needs cleanup. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:47, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.mojikan.com http://spam.morfdynamics.com

Spam pages

Sites spammed

Spammers

Template:UserSummary

MER-C 09:00, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deferblack --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Mindv

This needs an admin's attention as the user is about ready for a block. Looks like a WP:COI as well. --Ronz (talk) 03:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

He's admitted to the coi and is repeatedly trying to make an article for the product that he's trying to promote. --Ronz (talk) 05:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

... thrice-deleted (so far). — Athaenara ✉ 05:32, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Blocked. Thanks for the help. --Ronz (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bad enough to block, bad enough to blacklist: Template:Deferblack --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:31, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.themoviemap.com

Spammers

Template:UserSummary

Template:Deferspambot, but hasn't stopped yet... MER-C 10:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Related domain

http://darrenlangley.com
- Template:LinkSummary

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:27, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

user:Friarpuckrory

This user appears to be spamming, but it is not completely clear. They have added external reading and links to several articles. All are referenced back to a company called new.goldmau.com which appears to be a gold investment company. I thought I would get a second opinion before reverting anything. Arzel (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like the site is lifting copyrighted material without any attribution. The Soros article was printed in the Financial Times and on Soros website. The Munger article appears to be from the appendix of a book called The Intelligent Investor. In my opinion they all need to go. It not just spam, its spam predicated on theft of copyrighted material. Montco (talk) 01:30, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the response. I see you got most of them before I saw this. Arzel (talk) 02:02, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to watch his contributions. I warned him (nicely) that the link was inappropriate. If he or she is inncocently adding the material that should take care of it. If the editor is associated with the site and continues, one of the admins here may have to have a more serious chat. Montco (talk) 02:21, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Tracking link: http://goldmau.com
--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:08, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spam.andrewleaning.com

Previous incidents

Sites spammed

Spammers

Template:Deferblack MER-C 11:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still spamming. MER-C 14:30, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Earlier accounts:

Earlier domain used:

Template:LinkSummary

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:00, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spam.greenoptimistic.com

Template:LinkSummary
Domain registered less than 6 months ago suddenly worthy of 2 ELs on Fuel Cell? Unlikely.

Added by Template:IPSummary
Earlier edit history includes:
Template:LinkSummary (Same AdSense ID)

AdSense: pub-6363402612711676

Template:Deferblack Caomhin (talk) 11:22, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, not finished writing the Defer yet but more info for completeness:

Also added by Template:IPSummary

Also added by that IP Template:LinkSummary

rockon.ro redirects to Template:LinkSummary with AdSense ID: pub-9427048641572074

Please note .ro domains. The green blogs above had .ro registrations.

Caomhin (talk) 11:32, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More link dumping for rocon.ro by Template:IPSummary Caomhin (talk) 12:41, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have meta-blacklisted rockon.ro, as metalhead.ro and bestmusic.ro (all from the same farm) are already there. Persistent editors. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:46, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mcic

Template:UserSummary has just added two generic Chicago links to every Chicago neighborhood article. Is there some automated way to undo all of these? Jpers36 (talk) 21:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

returnticketmusic.com

User:PZFUN created an article for a music blog Return Ticket Music and the proceeded to add review links to ~50 articles in the span of an hour. --William Graham ^talk 04:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UserSummary

Looks like that user is Paul Zachary, a contributor to that site.[44]--William Graham ^talk 04:54, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

PZFUN is an establisahed user with nearly 8000 edits. Please do not speculate about their RL identity and extend some good faith. Has anyone tried to speak to them about the additions? Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:58, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I left a message on his talk page. --William Graham ^talk 14:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Being an established editor does not buy anyone a free ticket on spam or COI issues, but it does entitle them to a special measure of tact and discretion. After some early incidents, I now avoid templating their talk pages in favor of a more careful message -- that or sometimes, just a private e-mail.

I removed the links with the edit summaries such as this one:

"Remove link added in good faith but possibly with a conflict of interest; other, disinterested editors should feel free to reinsert if they think it's useful and meets WP:EL"

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:05, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spam.developersbook.com

Template:IPSummary
Template:IPSummary

July 1st the following IP went through a variety of pages adding ELs/"references" Template:IPSummary

Worst offences were the replacing of more authoritative pages; i.e [45] and [46] replaced Sun.com on the Sun Certified Training pages with own domain.

Caomhin (talk) 09:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

More goodies! In cleaning found the domain spammed in See Also sections of pages, frequently removed then replaced, and multiple links on most articles. Heavy blacklist candidate in my opinion.

All 3 IPs are registered in the Boston area. Domain registered behind a privacy screen and no contact details on website.

AdSense ID: pub-1170662245723648

Template:Deferblack Caomhin (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: 146.243.4.157 just tried to delete this section.^[47] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:33, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Now 98.217.132.149 (talk • contribs • urlencode:98.217.132.149&site=SERVERNAME count) just tried to delete this section. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:40, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

And again. Kelly ^hi! 03:23, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

spam.kavlak.net

Spammers

Template:IPSummary

Vandalized on the Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.

On Turkish Wikipedia only see tr:Special:Contributions/77.92.142.85.

All spammers are blatant vandals see e.g. [48]. Template:Defermetablack MER-C 12:15, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPSummary blanked this section. MER-C 07:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:IPSummary blanked section Caomhin (talk) 08:03, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Google map search

This site is added as "Search satellite map at Maplandia.com" to a few articles and provides mainly an interface to search google maps. Oddly it's being added by an approved bot. In some cases, it does provide a valid reference. Some manual additions, such as Bošamarin seem useless though (Google maps finds the place, but maplandia doesn't). -- User:Docu

patnys.com again

Template:LinkSummary

Editors

Template:IPSummary - editor previously reported for spamming has continued to add the link, most recently 10 July 2008
Template:UserSummary - new editor, WP:SPA, has a coi, added link in May and June
Template:UserSummary - new editor, WP:SPA, added link in June
Template:IPSummary - 16 July 2008

Previous report: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1#http:.2F.2Fspam.patnys.com

I've given them all warnings. This looks like sockpuppetry or people working for the same organization. --Ronz (talk) 17:17, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Deferblack --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:38, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The spamming has continued by 220.227.179.4. --Ronz (talk) 15:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

COIBot report on the way, I added it for now to XLinkBot. Block all spam accounts indef, please. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Ronz. I got distracted and didn't follow through last week. This domain is now blacklisted locally. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)}

Not a problem. Thanks for the help and explanation! --Ronz (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

eyeglasses spam

A bunch of eyeglasses-related pages were spammed by the same anonymous user with links to commercial web sites, sunglasses-direct.co.uk, tomfordsunglasses.com, and kingswalkcontactlenses.co.uk. The spam has been reverted, but at least one of them retained text indicating that it was a link to a relevant web site.

I didn't warn; I don't know what policy is on warning an anonymous user.

Domains spammed

www.sunglasses-direct.co.uk
- Template:LinkSummary
www.tomfordsunglasses.com
- Template:LinkSummary
www.kingswalkcontactlenses.co.uk
- Template:LinkSummary
www.stephendonaldeyewear.co.uk
- Template:LinkSummary

Public registration data

Stephen Donald Eyewear^[49]

5 Kings Walk

Nottingham, Nottinghamshire, NG1 2AE

GB

Spam accounts

Replacing other links with your own is particularly inappropriate, especially when the original links are to the official websites of the articles' subjects (Ray-Ban, Luxottica).^{[50][51][52][53]}

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:18, 10 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Still another warning followed by a block.

Bad enough to block, bad enough to blacklist. Template:Deferblack --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:25, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:ModaRazzi and modarazzi.com

User is self-identified as the owner and operator of the website http://www.modarazzi.com. He has been notified and warned multiple times on his talk page regarding the spamming of fashion related pages with links to the website (see contributions here). Following my removal of multiple spam links, he contacted me on my talk page here with a personal attack and threats for removing the links. A brief exchange had the result that he intended to continue to re-add the links each time they were removed. The page has been linked to articles multiple times as noted here: Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/modarazzi.com. The links have been on the report on multiple dates (from user backlinks link):

Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008 Jun 26
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jun 28
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 2
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 3
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 5
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 8
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 9
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/COIReports/2008, Jul 10

This is the first time I've made a report to this board and hope I have done this right. Thank you. Wildhartlivie (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link information follows:

Spam pages

Sites spammed

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

Template:UserSummary

MER-C 13:10, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I indefblocked the user and put his link on XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:06, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fiorano Software

You'd think they would have gone away by now.

Previous incidents

Spam pages

Template:Lu

Spammers

Template:UserSummary

MER-C 12:16, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.germany-christmas-market.org.uk

http://spam.dandys-garden-forum.the-talk.net

Spammers

Template:IPSummary

MER-C 12:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Added link again after MER-C's warning [54] Caomhin (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dandy's Topsoil http://spam.dandystopsoil.co.uk

Sites spammed

Template:Spamlink

http://spam.dandys.org

Template:Spamlink

Template:Spamlink

Spammers

Spammer replaced existing links.

MER-C 13:27, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't feel that I spammed anything...

When I added the link to a book on Amazon after saying that the book had a plot that involved the collapse of Cumbre Vieja. I linked to the book's site on Amazon as a reference - to cite the information I was providing. I think it is unfair to blacklist me, and thus to call into question my integrity as an editor on the wikipedia, and further to link to my page with this unfair claim, automated bot or not. Please in the future, write to me if you or your bot have a problem with one of my edits before placing me on a blacklist.

2007-12-29 20:34:04: User en:Saudade7 (talk - contribs) to en:Cumbre Vieja (diff). Links: www.amazon.com/Scimitar-SL-2-Robinson-Patrick/dp/0060086645.

Thank you. Saudade7 11:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody has placed you on a blacklist if you are posting here. Amazon links are nixed by the bot because its a commercial book sales site. Considering you nixed a couple of online stores on Taxidermy I would think that you could appreciate that. I am sure you can find a book review or some other type of reference that you can use to discuss the book. Montco (talk) 13:06, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Corporate vandalism

I'm persuaded that the New York Post and/or its parent company, the NewsCorp is using Wikipedia as an advertising venue.

For background on what appears to be a kind of corporate vandalism, please see:

Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#NYC -- real estate advertiser

Thank you for your efforts in resolving this curious situation. --Tenmei (talk) 17:55, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.blackblot.com/

Links added

Template:LinkSummary

User account(s)

Template:Userlinks

User Template:Userlinks has admitted on the discussion page of Blackblot that he / she is associated with Blackblot...com. He / she also created a Wikipedia article on Blackblot. So, he / she can't insert links to blackblot...com. This is a clear case of conflict of interst, and SPAMMING, guised under REFERENCES. What he / she is doing is self-promotion to sell more of Blackblot's PMTK templates (or whatever else he / she claims to be selling on the discussion page of Blackblot by getting free advertising and free Internet traffic through Wikipedia. Also, the Blackblot article should be placed as an Article for Deletion (AFD), since there is a CONFLICT OF INTEREST / BUSINESS PROMOTION on that article Blackblotas well...

Some of the articles where I have deleted SPAM links to blackblot...com; which are cleverly disguised as REFERENCES, include articles on Marketing, Marketing communications, Marketing mix, Analyst relations, Competitive advantage, etc. Then someone pointed out that I should report Spinacia's SPAMMING of blackblot...com on this page, hence I am duly reporting this.

This user's Template:Userlinks contributions are clever; he creates new articles, or introduces a subheading called Alternative view of marketing, product marketing, marketing communications, or what have you, and then adds a SPAM link to his blackblot...com homepage as a reference. Some administrator should visit all the articles Spinacia made contributions to, and delete these SPAM references; since his / her SPAM references are affecting the neutrality of content for these articles.

Frequently, other users add content, and Spinacia goes and undoes those, to preserve his SPAM link. So, Spinacia should be warned, and probably banned from making edits to Wikipedia. Also, the article on his / her company / business called Blackblot should be blacklisted / deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.109.174.47 (talk • contribs) 21:53, July 12, 2008

- Please note that user 69.109.174.47 has not contributed anything to Wikipedia and his sole purpose on Wikipedia is to have my content removed. Without going into lengthy debates about valid citations, sources and notability, I voluntarily removed ALL my content contributions and the accompanying citations. I ask the reports made about me be removed as they are no longer relevant.Spinacia (talk) 03:57, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

- - Additional Note: While from the outset I made full disclosure and was always transparent about my identity, user 69.109.174.47 never was and appeared on Wikipedia one day only to harass and modify my content. This user originally deleted entire submissions and then opted only to delete references. So his motivation here is clear. He is most likely a commercial competitor and the admins had served his wishes, but ultimately it is the Wikipedia community that will be hurt because they will not be able to see the content. This matter is over, but please be advised that my content is copyright and must be accompanied by sources so I will not allow it to be resubmitted. Thanks.Spinacia (talk) 04:25, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed all the links as spam. All but one were added by Spinacia. --Ronz (talk) 18:01, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Repeated insertion of nonsense to Bad Boys Blue page

There's an ongoing nuisance created by user Playahata69 now for the 4th time on Bad Boys Blue page. This clearly immature character inserts his personal opinion into the article and he is just looking for attention. The article already addresses elsewhere an inequality between the two current formations and there's no need to include some teenage fan's unsubstantiated opinion to accentuate his/her personal, which does not belong to wiki.

I would very much appreciate if appropriate action could be taken on this borderline vandal to prevent him/her from making disruptive edits to Bad Boys Blue. Lionscitygl (talk) 15:19, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Not really a spam issue I'm afraid. Wikipedia:Editor assistance/Requests may be a more appropriate place for assistance. Else if things get too out of hand there's Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism Caomhin (talk) 15:52, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Already resolved, thanks. Lionscitygl (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Grahamwelch

I'm not at home at this Wikipedia project so I'm unfamiliar with the proceedings. Just want to notify you about User Grahamwelch who is doing link-spam not only here, but at other Wikipedias too (now blocked indef at German WP). -- CecilK (talk) 19:41, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:UserSummary
Template:LinkSummary

Given .de blacklisting Template:Deferblack

Caomhin (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Spamming on Asuncion article

I have given 2 warnings to Template:User for spamming and they're continuing. The IP is used solely for spamming.

http://spam.buscar.com.py

Michellecrisp (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Link info follows. MER-C 02:50, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Template:Spamlink

Adult Stars Magazine

Deleted article

Template:La

Links added

Template:LinkSummary

Account

Template:UserSummary

Kelly ^hi! 03:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just seen a link replaced by a new account with a single edit.

Template:UserSummary

Caomhin (talk) 21:13, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.ishmaeljones.com

Spammers

MER-C 12:24, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leedryburgh

Please consider Template:User5 for blocking for repeated external link spamming of SIGTRAN, Signaling System 7 and IP Multimedia Subsystem articles. Thank You. Dgtsyb (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

See templates above. Dgtsyb (talk) 22:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User Dgtsyb keeps being a drain on Wikipedia resources and this is yet another drain. The user has made all kinds of claims, even down to my IP address not matching the country I live in (like he should know where I reside), and other personal claims which are unprofessional and untrue. We can't guess his motives but the main thing is to realise and get a picture of his ongoing behaviour. The last false accusation was of sock puppetry here Wikipedia:Suspected_sock_puppets/Leedryburgh. He also has engaged in vandalising my talk page again after being advised not to by an admin User_talk:Leedryburgh. For a full discussion of the issue please see Talk:Signaling_System_7 . Thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 23:16, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leedryburgh, please take a look at our Conflict of Interest Guideline. You are not to add links to your own site. If someone else adds them and they meet our other guidelines, that's OK. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:30, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The link in question is of relevance to the pages in question and Leedryburgh has gone some way to address concerns by removign advertising from the book pages. The question is now simply whether the links belong on the External Links sections of the pages - if its just a question of who adds them, for heavens sake, I'll add them, if there is some other reason why they shouldnt be here it would help if the reasons were explained to Leedryburgh in full, (I for one dont understand why they keep being removed without discussion). The edit war between these two users is becoming a distraction to those of us who monitor the pages. Beardybloke (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Talk:Signaling System 7#link revisited? for an opinion on the suitability of the links in any section. Dgtsyb (talk) 23:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Leedryburgh and Dgtsyb should just disengage from this and I've left them both talk page messages to this effect. Leedryburgh should not add any of his links (per WP:COI) and Dgtsyb should not remove them again (per WP:EDITWAR). There are other editors familiar with SS7 that should be able to handle the link question just fine. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I just want to make the point that AFTER making a the clearly false spam claim (Dgtsyb wanted it moved in terms of section not removed), someone is placing my links back in under a strange IP and using my text. If this is to support a false claim, this is not good work. Thanks. Leedryburgh (talk) 09:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It is ongoing, and I have therefor added the link to XLinkBot. Leedryburgh, involved IPs, please DISCUSS insertion of the link and achieve CONSENSUS on the talkpage. I suggest that the next failure to do so will result in blacklisting of the link, and blocking of the account using the link. Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:14, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think its helpful to talk of blacklisting at this point. If ever there was a green light for someone who overtly wants the link excluded to start IP editting to force its complete removal by an admin then that was it. Its really not helpful. Lee is understandably agitated about the whole thing as he presumably feels a sense of ownership and pride in his own work which is a hefty tome on the subject matter. I'd suggest he takes a few more breaths before further input to the topic. Its obvious he and Dgtsyb rub each other up the wrong way and we seem to be talking about it now in the Talk page for SS7. Beardybloke (talk) 15:18, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There are a number of tools we could use if this continues:

Check-user followed by a long or even indefinite block for whichever party is using those IPs
Article semi-protection
Blocks of edit-warring parties
Domain blacklisting

We'll just have to see what happens next. Hopefully both parties have gotten the message by now. If not, we'll have to think up a Plan B depending on what happens next. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:49, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

On Signaling System 7 the link is in the references section, and there is no need for a second copy of that. The link is on XLinkBot, and will be reverted if an IP adds it again (or we will be alerted it happens). Lee, I think that document makes a perfect reference, and I believe it should be used as such. I hope this resolves this part of the story, if the IPs insist the other way will be to semiprotect the document, and I hope that involved parties understand that the page is now being watched by some admins, and that further warring without proper discussion on the talkpage (where parties have agreed mutually to a certain point) may result in blocks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:20, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This is fine. I now give up. I'll go away and take a deep breath - but the whole episode is indicative of one of the reasons I initially held off creating a wikipedia account. Its a bit like herding cats and life is too short. Beardybloke (talk) 17:27, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Guidence with Chaos theory

The Chaos theory in the media section of the chaos theory page has been the subject of an ongoing edit war over whether or not the inclusion of certain films, esp. Dasavatharam should be listed. It has been removed as linkspam, constantly re-added, the page has been protected and discussion regarding the provision of reliable sources has taken place. I have suggested that only documentaries by listed or that a Cultural References section be created, and along with others, requested that reliable sources by given to back up the claim that the film is significant to chaos theory. I have also suggested a template for chaos theory be created that lists related films, books, etc. and that just because a film is about something it doesn't mean it should listed on a relevant article. Can ayone confirm that the link and others are inappopriate spam or encyclopedic enough to merit a listing? - Shiftchange (talk) 03:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

http://spam.fibre2fashion.com

Spammers

MER-C 10:11, 16 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Telegraph Media Group Limited