Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Dec 1

Domain being spammed on Emma Stone
being added to Emma Stone by various IP editors:
 * and
 * - all clearly in the same geo region. Also,
 * Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)
 * - all clearly in the same geo region. Also,
 * Elizium23 (talk) 21:22, 10 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-8963405992835804


 * Sites blacklisted globally


 * Related domains


 * Additional spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/95.19.139.28
 * 88.18.195.38 is a cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/88.18.195.38
 * . Thanks for the report. MER-C 10:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)
 * 88.18.195.38 is a cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/88.18.195.38
 * . Thanks for the report. MER-C 10:35, 11 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Continued:
 * MER-C 05:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recycled. MER-C 12:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
 * MER-C 05:44, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Recycled. MER-C 12:15, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 01:44, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

timesharetalk.co.uk

 * link


 * account

Same WP:SPA IP user adding link to same user group forum, ongoing at least four years. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:08, 25 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Added IP 62.3.240.132, continued addition of link into article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:48, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

The Howling Sea

 * Songs From The Howling Sea

A folk song project based on East London themes. The article might be borderline notable (2 refs, one online), but the author has also added an "in music" section and para to a large number of articles on the song topics, including such biggies as Brunel and also such obscurities as Tosher. This is "internal spam", not external linkage.

The problem, as always, is that the relevance of musical topics isn't commutative. A song about the SS Great Eastern makes the Great Eastern highly relevant to the song, but it doesn't make the song relevant to the ship. Only if the song is especially notable (some "The Wreck of the..." songs do manage this) does the song gain a notable relevance to its subject. This is also diluted when the subject is particularly notable in its own right. Strawberry Fields would never have been a notable childrens' home without the song, but Dr Barnado was.

The first account has been nameblocked (marginal, IMHO) as potentially a group account. I'm reluctant to throw the IP into WP:AIV as this isn't vandalism, but nor do I think it's acceptable encyclopedic content, certainly not without breaching WP:UNDUE. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:04, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

espow.com

 * link


 * accounts

Commercial site being linked into multiple articles by SPA user accounts. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 06:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)

SEO Spamming knowledge-must.com and related

 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles


 * Articles for deletion/Knowledge Must
 * Articles for deletion/Knowledge Must


 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Long term Adsense spammer biggbosshouse.com
Adsense pub-6418134212609701
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Long term spamming, continued despite warnings, BL'd ✅ --Hu12 (talk) 17:44, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

Bielefeld University spamming

 * Articles
 * Articles


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 3 December 2010 (UTC)

imoviehall.com
Google Analytics UA-17058844


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 02:47, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

packtpub.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Apr
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Jul 1


 * Sites spammed
 * revertlisted
 * revertlisted


 * Spammers
 * : link.packtpub.com/aN4BwD redirects to packtpub.com/microsoft-enterprise-library-5-0/book?''' (emphasis added). This is clear abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing tool.
 * : link.packtpub.com/aN4BwD redirects to packtpub.com/microsoft-enterprise-library-5-0/book?''' (emphasis added). This is clear abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing tool.
 * : link.packtpub.com/aN4BwD redirects to packtpub.com/microsoft-enterprise-library-5-0/book?''' (emphasis added). This is clear abuse of Wikipedia as a marketing tool.


 * : packtpub.com/ibm-lotus-notes-8-5-user-guide/book?'''
 * : packtpub.com/ibm-lotus-notes-8-5-user-guide/book?'''


 * : packtpub.com/amazon-simpledb-database-developer-guide: author of the book in question
 * : packtpub.com/amazon-simpledb-database-developer-guide: author of the book in question
 * : packtpub.com/amazon-simpledb-database-developer-guide: author of the book in question
 * : packtpub.com/amazon-simpledb-database-developer-guide: author of the book in question
 * : packtpub.com/amazon-simpledb-database-developer-guide: author of the book in question
 * : packtpub.com/amazon-simpledb-database-developer-guide: author of the book in question


 * Plus more. See linksearch - these spammers have kept XLinkBot busy since revertlisting last year.
 * Plus more. See linksearch - these spammers have kept XLinkBot busy since revertlisting last year.

The nonsense is the straw that breaks the camel's back. . MER-C 03:10, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I have blacklisted the whole domain here, link.packtub.com blacklisted as an abused redirect site on meta. Let them use at least the full link ..  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:43, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * By the way, that isn't a referral link. That parameter is fed into Google Analytics and used for tracking reasons. Obviously someone at Packt Publishing wants to know how much their spamming has paid off. MER-C 11:04, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

webhostingsreview.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition by SPA user of a commercial directory page as a ref (fails WP:RS) and as an external link (fails WP:EL and WP:NOT) into multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:53, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I was tempted to block the user indef, as they've already been blocked once as a promotional account, but managed to get unblocked after pledging to stop. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)

freecokecodes.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated linkspamming of nn blog links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:48, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
 * --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:27, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

psr.keele.ac.uk

 * links

This link is counted 734 times on en:wp, but all links now redirect to politicsresources.net/ and the relevance of the original link has disappeared. I am not sure if this counts as spam, but i do think this link needs review. EdBever (talk) 09:00, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Adsense pub-4681742646893563
Google Analytics UA-1174465




 * Related domains


 * Spammers
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations
 * Spammer replaced existing citations


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see

To be continued. MER-C 09:26, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Tempted to say '' --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:56, 7 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. MER-C 12:22, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

Spamming of Fabryka Industrial Rock magazine

 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_65
 * User_talk:Torchiest#KMFDM_professional_review_links_deletion
 * Talk:Blitz_(album)


 * (mirror:The magazine uses two domains – www.industrialrock.net and www.fabryka.darknation.eu since it has been hosted on the Darknation.eu servers for the last several yearsindustrialrock.net/php-files_en/articles.php?article_id=371)
 * ( Fabryka Digital was founded at the beginning of November 2010 industrialrock.net/php-files_en/articles.php?article_id=371)
 * (dead)
 * (redirects)
 * (redirects)
 * Article Spam
 * Article Spam


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * "reviews are written and posted by me on my own industrial rock magazine, Fabryka"
 * "editor-in-chief, journalist, webmaster and art director of online magazine dedicated to industrial rock/metal style of music - Fabryka Industrial Rock"
 * "if you prefer to show asslicking reviews only then you are not providing reliable sources "

Long term spamming (since 2006) along with Linkfarming. --Hu12 (talk) 18:42, 7 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued..
 * '''Wikipedia ... supports lies only, especially when it comes to music and reviews. Then it scams for money for providing lies to the public....
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

KoleTang and classof1.com/homework_answers
In the last two days, the new editor KoleTang has left about 21 links to the commercial website classof1.com/homework_answers (under "external resources"). This seems to be the user's exclusive activity (after making 3 small edits to an article on a state of India). Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)




 * I think all the links have been removed from Wikipedia, as the only link to that site is now from this noticeboard and a tracking page. Netalarm talk 22:22, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks. This was my first time at this noticeboard. Kiefer.Wolfowitz (talk) 22:28, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

eastsidesun.com

 * links


 * articles


 * accounts

Likely sockpuppetry and/or off-wiki canvasing, as well as multiple SPA IP accounts making repeated outing threats. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:55, 4 December 2010 (UTC)


 * This is seriously disturbing, and potentialy very dangerous:


 * "How do we determine the identities of the people behind the screen names? This was a clearly orchestrated effort and it needs to be exposed in print. "


 * " ...they not only have a right to anonimity.. We have a workaround to identify the 4 editors that ganged up on The Sun we know 2 of them already. see ya in the newspapers! "


 * "Just thought you should get a heads up that people are looking to 'Out' y'all. "


 * "In response to a drive to delete the Eastside Sun from Wikipedia, a website has been developed to unmask the real life identities of wikipedia editors . "


 * Websites outside Wikipedia that are used to facilitate, promote, or encourage the harassment of individual Wikipedia editors and those who choose to edit the encyclopedia is a serious matter and may put people in danger.


 * An attack site is a site outside Wikipedia that engages in any of the following:
 * Compiles or sponsors efforts to obtain evidence that may be used to discover the real world identities of Wikipedia contributors;
 * An attack site might be run by an individual, in the form of a private website or a blog, or it could be a virtual community, such as another wiki or discussion forum.


 * Previous consensus, rulings, practice
 * Some rulings from the Arbitration Committee on linking to attack sites
 * "Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves." See #Combating harassment
 * "A website that engages in the practice of publishing private information concerning the identities of Wikipedia participants will be regarded as an attack site whose pages should not be linked to from Wikipedia pages under any circumstances." See #Outing sites as attack sites
 * ArbCom rulings
 * Combatting harassment
 * 2) Any user, including an administrator using administrative powers, may remove or otherwise defeat attempts at harassment of a user. This includes harassment directed at the user themselves.
 * Solidarity
 * 4) Wikipedia users, especially administrators, will not permit a user under attack to be isolated, but will support them. This may include reverting harassing edits, protecting or deleting pages, blocking users, or taking other appropriate action.
 * Any further linking, or attempts to link to another site as threatened, should be blacklisted on sight, with prejudice. --Hu12 (talk) 17:29, 9 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Found one attack hosted @ eastsidesun.com/nov2010.pdf "December 2010" issue, page 11; site is now blacklisted.✅--Hu12 (talk) 18:04, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Continued personal and family threats from . Oversight compleated.--Hu12 (talk) 18:08, 14 January 2011 (UTC)

Spam from the journalism course at Winchester University
I recently reverted a couple of external links to winchesterjournalism.co.uk that had been added by SPA, see The Guardian, and The Heart Network. The material at Winchesterjournalism is provided by students on the journalism couse at Winchester University, and to my mind the linked pages fail WP:EL by a margin.

I couldn't work out quite why Georgeberridge1 resinserted the links twice, despite my spam warnings at his page, other than to note the byline of the author was strikingly similar to Georgeberridge. Until I found instructions by one of the course tutors, which include ''Then once the article is up on the site ... then link to that URL from Wikipedia (or any other sites in addition that you can think of - eg, blogs). That way you will get a lot more traffic to Journalism Now and then ultimately to your blog:''. The instructions are (as of now) on the front page at http://www.winchesterjournalism.co.uk/ but I think this might be more permanent.

If the course tutors are recommending that the students spam Wikipedia, then I think rather more of these links might be heading our way. Again, I don't think the material is very good. Anyone have any thoughts or advice on a line of action? Mr Stephen (talk) 15:37, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi, George Berridge here. I'm really sorry for any trouble I've caused. I'm new to Wiki and hadn't checked the 'My Talk' section. I had assumed the links went down due to an error on my part in the way I'd posted them. That's why I posted them a second time. My mistake entirely! The articles are a way of showing what we've learnt through research as part of our course. I didn't realise that by putting links on to the article that I was violating Wikipedia's rules. There is no harm through meant through the articles and I would be very grateful of any help you could give me to help right the situation.

Thanks. --Georgeberridge1 (talk) 18:00, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

banglanews24.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

OpenSystems Media, LLC spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:08, 9 December 2010 (UTC)

mobile10.org
Google Analytics UA-19884725




 * Spammers

MER-C 09:45, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 11:34, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

DVD Release Sections
This user is putting DVD release sections in movie articles with links to a company called Mill_Creek_Entertainment, which are all being released some time in 2010-2011. Looks pretty spammy and unencyclopedic to me, but I'm not totally familiar with this area. If my hunch is right, there's a number of them, and maybe more linked to accounts on the page history at Mill Creek Ent. Ocaasi (talk) 04:51, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Yes, spammy, promotional, unsourced, unencyclopedic. It's not just Mill Creek Entertainment: Timeless Media Group Acorn Media. Looks fairly minor, though. He's not the only one doing this, and he's never been notified about the relevant policies/guidelines.
 * I'd like to see more discussion on DVD release sections. My initial inclination would be to remove them. --Ronz (talk) 18:12, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * If the additions are for solely advertising the sale of the DVD by a particular studio, website, store, etc., then it should be removed/reworded. For film articles, the section is supposed to include a summary that encompasses all forms of home media (for example, some older films have been released on VHS, laser disc, DVD, and now Blu-ray). A general description with an overview of additional features, sales, and critical reception can be encyclopedic. Detailing a film's Blu-ray sale on Amazon doesn't really help improve the article. WP:FILM's guidelines touch on this, but don't really spell out not to advertise. We'll need to take a look at expanding that to assist new editors and hopefully deter spammers. --Happy editing! Nehrams2020 (talk • contrib) 07:36, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the input. I'm not totally sure where this leaves the issue.  The additions are short and not particularly useful, but they do identify that the DVD exists and name of the company putting it out.  Are you saying that unless it can add more useful information, like what features are on the DVD, its not ok.  Because as is, I can't see taking out any information as leaving a usable piece (all it would say is 'Coming out on DVD in 2011').  Should I ask about this over at MOS:FILM? Ocaasi (talk) 20:59, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

I was asked to comment by user Ronz, so I will give my opinion on the issue seeing as how most of my work on Wikipedia is devoted to DVD releases of primarily older TV series. First, as to the above noted user and his actions, I cannot comment as I am not familiar with his edits since my edits are solely for TV series not films.

As for DVD release sections in general, I think they are relevant and should remain. Due to technological advancements, it is now possible to own copies of television series for one's own personal viewing. As such, this is a relevant topic that should be mentioned in an article about a TV series. The key issue which I think merits more discussion is what form would DVD release sections take, namely should there just be a few sentences about the releases or should a table be included which contains release date info?! This is a contentious issue which I have dealt with before and as such I have made some changes in how I edit these sections. My rule for DVD release tables is to only include them *if* a series is still being released on DVD or if a show has being released in multiple regions.

Bottom line, I would object to the outright removal of DVD release sections but would not necessarily object to the removal of the tables should that be something that a majority of editors desire?! I have been trying to get away from putting in tables and I am focusing instead on inserting references for each release where users can find more detailed info on the release instead of putting that info the article which I have noticed other users have done in various articles. Due to Wikipedia being an open platform, its difficult to make wholesale changes (such as removing these DVD release tables) because other users go in an re-instate them if they have been deleted. I would second Ronz's suggestion of having more discussion on DVD releases where hopefully some consensus can be reached and perhaps even a uniform policy about them can be instituted?!The GateKeeper07 (talk)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 30.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed

"For becoming?a member of our website, please click here"
 * Similar domains

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:

DMCA:
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }
 * }

generic blacklisting rule:
 * {{spamlink|bootsonshop.com}
 * {{spamlink|bootsonshop.com}
 * {{spamlink|bootsonshop.com}
 * {{spamlink|bootsonshop.com}
 * {{spamlink|bootsonshop.com}

domains already blacklisted:

"Free Shipping And Customs,Non Sale Tax"

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:


 * Spammers

They seem to be on a spamming binge as of late. MER-C 06:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 07:31, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Deleted and blocked.  7  07:50, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 31.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed

Your purchases will be sent directly by courier from our distribution centers your door
 * Similar domains

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:


 * Spammers

Sequence break! MER-C 10:27, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 32.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed

"but in such gloomy economic. Have"
 * Similar domains

"wholesale products will be lowest price that every customer loves"

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:

"You can find western union service in almost every post office around the world"

generic blacklisting rule:

domains already blacklisted:



"If for any reason you are not satisfied with the you received"


 * Spammers

Bleh. MER-C 08:58, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 08:07, 17 December 2010 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 33.0



 * Spammers

Bah. MER-C 02:05, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 00:00, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * This domain has disappeared. MER-C 03:37, 19 December 2010 (UTC)

techno-crunch.com
Adsense pub-9922649927367086


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spamemd


 * Spammers

MER-C 01:40, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

pigbusiness.co.uk

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Adsense pub-1204496458993595 gamesy8s.com
Adsense pub-1204496458993595
 * Cross wiki spam
 * Cross wiki spam
 * Cross wiki spam


 * vi:Special:Contributions/118.70.124.156
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Also  Them  From  Space  12:40, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

ucadogs.com

 * links


 * accounts

Generic link into multiple dog breed-specific articles by at least four WP:SPA IPs, all over the last 1-2 days. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:51, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added IP 75.208.160.181, which began adding the links today into the same articles. --- Barek (talk) - 20:54, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Added IP 75.208.13.159 ... another SPA user adding the general site link into breed-specific articles. --- Barek (talk) - 16:28, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

espice.in
Link

Accounts

Reference spam of a non-reliable source.  Them From  Space  12:51, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

xxx.iplanonline.in
- Spam only account. I don't have rollback rights which would be the quickest way to remove these. Thanks, -- John (Daytona2 · &#32; Talk · &#32; Contribs) 17:02, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It was only 2 articles (a third had been reverted already). Took only a couple of minutes to cleanup. --GraemeL (talk) 20:44, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

fret12.com

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1


 * Spam pages
 * deleted 3 times


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Possibly
 * Possibly

MER-C 12:46, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Tetronics Ltd

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

- Marketing Manager of Tetronics Ltd --Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

orientalisma.com
Adsense pub-1280583891882025:xgjncsysuth
 * User:Assiegh/Orientalisma
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:47, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

sweepingzen.com

 * "Sweeping Zen is a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for sites to earn advertising fees by advertising and linking to amazon.com."
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Appears the IP's are related to the established account--Hu12 (talk) 17:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

icartists.co.uk

 * related
 * redirects to icartists.co.uk
 * redirects to icartists.co.uk


 * Van Walsum Management agency  is International Classical Artists Management
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

soulinterviews.com

 * Article spam
 * Article spam


 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

realestate.com.au
This link is used 66 times as reference, but appears to have been spammed crosswiki. 114.76.26.136 has placed the link 15 times for example. The site appears to have a definite commercial interest (selling real estate and the site is full of flashy advertising) and I would say that the referential value is too low to keep, but I am not sure. Please have a look to see if this link can be kept or deleted. EdBever (talk) 21:23, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * It is mostly being used to reference median home values. As such its usefulness depends on its reliability.  I would suggest asking at the reliable sources noticeboard to see if the figures presented in the site are reliable. Looking over WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/realestate.com.au, I see a lot of new accounts adding this link but its hard to tell if they are doing it for promotional purposes (a coordinated spamming attempt?) or not.  Them  From  Space  09:34, 16 December 2010 (UTC)