User talk:Csi235

Need advice on possible spam at Building-integrated photovoltaics
I think the last five edits to Building-integrated photovoltaics are spam, but it might be good-faith but poorly-executed editing. To wit:
 * 1)  adds an external link to a company selling these systems.  (I think; the page is in Spanish.)  If I understand the external link policy, that's not allowed unless the company has some other relevance to the article, and I don't think it does.
 * 2)  is a different company selling these systems.
 * 3)  is a minor edit of 718897690; if that one is okay, this one would be too.
 * 4)  breaks the link to one of the images in the gallery; I originally thought it was a botched edit, but given it clearly is trying to link to the same company as the previous two, I suspect it's more spam.
 * 5)  adds the same company name to an image caption.  For all I know, that's the actual name of the project, but given that it's not in the image name I think it's also spam.

Questions: Csi235 (talk) 04:00, 16 July 2016 (UTC)
 * 1) I want to undo all five of these edits as spam, reverting the article back to .  Is that the right thing to do?
 * 2) Am I right that the external link policy does not allow linking to companies just because they sell something related to the article?
 * 3) Which warnings are appropriate, if any?  I checked the commit logs for all three IP addresses involved, and these five edits account for all of them.  I was thinking Uw-spam1 for  and  and either that or Uw-spam2 for, given that three of the edits were theirs.
 * Yes it is and I have reverted back to that edit. I was not sure if you had the proper gadget installed so I just did it to make it easier. I used Twinkle which can be activated in your preferences under gadgets. This makes reverting back to a particular edit much easier.
 * You are correct. WP:ELNO pretty clearly says that that is spam.
 * I'm not going to warn at this point. I've put the page on my watchlist and will be checking to see if it happens again. If it does, then I'll leave a warning. A lot of these spammy edits are one off things and when people see that it was removed they get the point and stop. That however is just my opinion on the matter. Warnings are perfectly fine and uw-spam1 would be the correct one to use in this situation if you wanted to go down that route. Good catch and welcome to Wikipedia! --Majora (talk) 04:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)