Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Mar 1

PalmStatePlumbing
Its a spam account.-- Yutsi Talk/  Contributions  02:49, 1 March 2010 (UTC) is a sample spam edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Yutsi (talk • contribs) 02:51, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * undefined 185.156.72.9 (talk) 06:50, 23 January 2023 (UTC)
 * undefined 185.156.72.9 (talk) 08:20, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

meigalicia.com

 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see

MER-C 08:30, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

reversephonecheck.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 04:51, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 08:18, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

justia.com
The spammer replaced internal Wikilinks with external links to justia.com on several landmark Supreme Court cases and lists of SCOTUS volumes (see contribs), using one username for one case or list each. --bender235 (talk) 15:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Spammers
 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see


 * External link spammer, see
 * (and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg)
 * (and this is probably just the tip of the iceberg)

A couple more. Richwales (talk) 18:23, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
 * External link spammer, see ; note that link spamming was combined with other editing
 * External link spammer, see ; note that link spamming was combined with other editing


 * External link spammer, see
 * External link spammer, see

Awesome. I've filed a SPI for you: Sockpuppet investigations/PrimaryFunction. It's a worthwhile reference, so for now. MER-C 10:34, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Jurist's little helper


Obviously an older case of spamming. This user added a link to



on almost every list of United States Supreme Court cases. I hope there's a bot who can revert this (should we?), because I certainly do not want to do it by hand ;-). --bender235 (talk) 18:35, 1 March 2010 (UTC)



These cookie cutter userpages are highly concerning. MER-C 10:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

indochinavisa.com
Adsense pub-2323425783006305


 * Spammers

MER-C 08:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

members.gnar.int.ru/~weev


When I clicked on this link to verify that it was a legitimate change it caused my computer to go nuts so I reverted the entry. This may be the only time that it has been added to an article, but, I am posting this to try and prevent it causing problems elsewhere on wikipedia. Also this is the first time that I have reported an item to this page so if I have done anything in error please let me know so that I can be more efficient in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that they only added this EL once which may not fit the definition of spam but it created such havoc on my computer that I thought that it was important to make the wikipedia powers that be aware of it. If there is a better place to report this please let me know about that also. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

my-island-jamaica.com

 * links


 * ad-sense account
 * ca-pub-8567945130130562


 * accounts

Self published blog containing excessive amounts of advertisements. The site also heavily promotes "how to make money on your own business site" type of content. Each account has been warned multiple times, and one was blocked at one point due to linkspamming, which they continued after the block expired. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:28, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

chinah2h.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 09:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

costabrava-rentals.co.uk
Adsense pub-4180848513533996




 * Spammers

XLinkBot hasn't stopped them => MER-C 05:34, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

reservationshotels.org

 * Spammers

MER-C 05:25, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Note: this report was blanked by .  This IP has no other edits, but the whois appears related to the other IPs involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

nfldraftgeek.com

 * Spammer

Just a minor case. Comparable to the NFLDraftDepot.com spamming. That website might deserve a place on the spam blacklist. --bender235 (talk) 17:49, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

kasur.org

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed
 * Redirects to kasur.org via frameset
 * Redirects to kasur.org via frameset
 * Redirects to kasur.org via frameset


 * Redirects to kasur.org
 * Redirects to kasur.org


 * Redirects to kasur.org via frameset
 * Redirects to kasur.org via frameset


 * Spammers
 * Spammer replaced existing links and vandalized talk pages
 * Spammer replaced existing links and vandalized talk pages


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer vandalized talk pages
 * Spammer vandalized talk pages


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links and vandalized talk pages
 * Spammer replaced existing links and vandalized talk pages


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer removed existing links and replaced existing links
 * Spammer removed existing links and replaced existing links
 * Spammer removed existing links and replaced existing links
 * Spammer removed existing links and replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced and removed existing links
 * Spammer replaced and removed existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links



MER-C 08:43, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 02:43, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

europeanbeerguide.net
Link Users

Sockpuppet Investigation report

I'm surprised this hasn't been mentioned on this board before: there's been a lot of recent sockpuppet spam to europeanbeerguide.net. All of the spam appears to be to the homepage and not to any of the subpages. All of the users listed above are currently blocked but it seems likely that the spamming behaviour isn't over. Them From  Space  04:48, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also note that User:Patto1ro claims that these spam attacks are aimed at him as an attempt to get his website put on the spam blacklist. Due to this, and since the this link has been used on Wikipedia before the spamming began, I would recommend vigilance over blacklisting.  Them  From  Space  04:57, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

Hi, this user (along with numerous sockpuppets) has been adding links to European Beer Guide to beer as fast as we can get rid of them. The user and identified socks are being blocked. Is it possible to blacklist the site from being added? Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:46, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I'll withdraw my request as I only just noticed Themfromspace's comment. Cheers Clovis Sangrail (talk) 03:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * OK, Simple, this goes on XLinkBot, keep an eye on talkpages linked from Special:Linksearch/*.europeanbeerguide.net. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:12, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Related to bjcp.org
This all seems too similar to another case ..




 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive181
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Archive_2
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Beer/Archive_2
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August_2009
 * Special:AbuseFilter/232
 * Sockpuppet_investigations/Jojojohnson2/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/BJCP

And now:


 * Sockpuppet investigations/Eurobeerguide
 * Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam (this thread)

So there is only one goal here, getting a certain site off wikipedia, while another one is supposed to be coming on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:47, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

www.EdwardGibbonStudies.com
A flurry of edits a few hours ago, mostly adding this to External Links:


 * EdwardGibbonStudies.com: the Web's Leading Center for Edward Gibbon Studies

Am I right in that thinking that there are editors with tools that enable them to undo this all more efficiently than me undoing them all one-by-one?  almost - instinct 08:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * For this small-scale stuff, manual editing is the correct approach. I just went through the list and removed a few. There are currently four links remaining which look good to me (although it's a little unhelpful how the link is to a generic home page). Johnuniq (talk) 10:01, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Inline citation abuse
. Sole purpose of this account appears to be adding text so that he can make inline citations to Opalesue, a cite that requires registration. All of his edits need to be reviewed carefully or be undone. I don't have time to do it. -- DS1953 talk 15:44, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

IP adding a handful of domains
See also: Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents (perm link to current discussion.





IP was blocked for a year, noted here for reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:59, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

freesocialbuttons.com

 * links


 * accounts

SPA accounts spamming links into multiple social media related articles. The target site provides free buttons for linking social networking sites - entirely promotional for the site, with no encyclopedic value. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:23, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-1518608788502492 MER-C 03:06, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

torlys.com


A real potpourri: a user, an IP, and a spam domain. tedder (talk) 19:09, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

blackfives.com


Users


 * Spamming includes misuse of the template.  Them  From  Space  20:53, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

Lilybreeding.com - user Cindyrian
Thparkth (talk) 02:17, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Spam pages
 * These pages were created solely to house links to lilybreeding.com.


 * Also:


 * Cleaned. MER-C 03:04, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

policedirectory.net
Adsense pub-8653439733701555


 * Spammers

MER-C 02:54, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

be-the-healthiest.com

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


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



Continued spamming despite XLinkBot + NRV => MER-C 03:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

newsgates.com
Adsense pub-5205434242118403




 * Spammers

Looks like some poorly spun/scraped nonsense. Clearly made for AdSense. MER-C 08:19, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

cosmetictattooist.com
Making advertising for a course in permanent makeup on the Permanent makeup article. Has been warned, but re-inserts the spam.



OpenFuture (talk) 10:42, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Adsense pub-6692532361537060
 * Add link tracking template. MER-C 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Add link tracking template. MER-C 13:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

More sedo redirect chain spamming

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

Other stuff relating to Sedo parked domains:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2.5
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jan 1


 * Sites spammed
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to

end chain


 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
 * redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end chain


 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
 * redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end chain


 * redirects via frame to sedoparking.com
 * redirects via frame to sedoparking.com

end chain


 * redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com
 * redirects via frameset to sedoparking.com

end chain

Not parked Sedo domains:
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to

end chain


 * Spammers
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer replaced existing links

How do we deal with this annoying crap? MER-C 08:14, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 08:30, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

members.gnar.int.ru/~weev
When I clicked on this link to verify that it was a legitimate change it caused my computer to go nuts so I reverted the entry. This may be the only time that it has been added to an article, but, I am posting this to try and prevent it causing problems elsewhere on wikipedia. Also this is the first time that I have reported an item to this page so if I have done anything in error please let me know so that I can be more efficient in the future. MarnetteD | Talk 13:28, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I realize that they only added this EL once which may not fit the definition of spam but it created such havoc on my computer that I thought that it was important to make the wikipedia powers that be aware of it. If there is a better place to report this please let me know about that also. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 13:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Miszabot archived this without any action being taken. Please take a look and take some action even if it is to decline this. I am only trying to protect wikipedia editors and readers from craziness/damage to their computers. Thanks for your time. MarnetteD | Talk 13:21, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * This page is used mainly as a notebook for spam patrollers and is generally a self-service venue. The site is 404 right now, but if I remember correctly it was some GNAA stuff (i.e. YHBT). MER-C 13:57, 13 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the explanation. As I said I have not used this page before and it helps to know what it is all about. I am also glad to know that Wikipedia is aware of this link and protected from it. I appreciated the time you to took to reply and you may archive this now if you wish. Thanks again and cheers. MarnetteD | Talk 14:06, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

compusol.org
Basically, over period of months, at the Ecco_pro article, using various accounts , , etc.,  the same spam links to compusol pay-to-access bootleg downloads get inserted diff,  and the links to official wiki, and user group where official software is distributed for free are removed. By 'coincidence' the same editor "Dirk Beetstra" shows up at exactly these same times and supports the edits, threatening ("warning") others not to revert.

This has been going on for months now. There will be periods of lulls, and then Dirk Beetstra shows up again at the same time as some new single use account re-inserting the compusol.org links. Dirk is very careful never to insert the actual spam links himself, but you can notice on history how his 'modifications' always support the spam inserts and he threatens/warns others, myself included,  not to revert history eg.

Am not a wikipedia 'pro', although have been contributing for long time,  mostly just in areas of my own expertise. Have worked hard to help keep up this article, but as one of the moderators at the official ecco_pro user group,  Dirk Beetstra 'warns' me that I have a technical conflict of interest in removing spam links to a pay-to-acess site and restoring the original links to the official distribution site (where the software is free).

Sure hope multiple links to a bootleg, pay-to-download site are not welcome in wikipedia, and the official distribution for licensed, but free software is an appropriate link in an article about that software (as well as link to the program's official wiki site, referenced historic data on program, etc.).YSWT (talk) 02:23, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It should be noted here, that YSWT himself has a conflict of interest with a forum (and a wiki?) that they keep on inserting themselves, or advocating to have direct in-text links in the articles as well. The information where EccoProMember is linking to, are articles on their site, which assert the information in the wikipedia article.  I agree that this is not the best source, and independent sources should be preferred, but the forums and wikis are even less reliable that compusol.
 * At the moment, I have taken the utmost care not to link to any downloads directly, remove all how-to-install and other manual-type information, and to request (as I did before) independent reliable sources for most places. These have, over the last months, not been produced (though there is talk about PC Magazine articles, of which, thanks to EccoProMember, now a couple are properly referenced (EccoProMember linked, inappropriately, to scans on their own website, these links to scans have now been replaced)).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * (1) The eccowiki.com is not mine, it is the official wiki for the product and extension,  and is the homepage of extension specs, for which it was referenced. (my COI is that am one of several volunteer moderators at the ecco_pro forum.). (2) The compusol 'links' removed actual links and reference to themselves.  They are not a publication,  not a reliable or legitimate source.  The linked references themselves are referals to the pay-to-play links on the compusol site.  Compusol is a private pay-to-access forum distributing bootleg software on ecco.  How can official downloads of official program manuals, official program, etc.  but "less reliable" than a pay-to join forum ?  (3) The compusol link spams speak for themselves.   (4) The ecco extension, which is notable as referenced in books, and print media, is officially based at the ecco_pro forum and specs official at the eccowiki.com wiki.   Both are official.  Removing those links and links to other free information references and replacing with links to the compusol site which all funnel to pay-to-access,  is troubling.YSWT (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Also troubling is the repeated pattern of Beetstra editing the article at sporatic points, but by coincidence always in conjunction with injection of compusol links,  and making threats and warnings to those attempting to revert the links.  If history is looked at closely,  you can see where Beetstra removes links to legit publications and fills in nitation needed cues,  which then compusol links come to fill.  In October of '09 I noticed the connection but thought it was unintentional and raised the issue on Dirk's talk page.  It is now a pattern.  It is a directed spam that has been attempted to be hidden.  For this reason it seems especially troubling.YSWT (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Final note that I am the editor who originally added compusol to the wiki several years ago. At the time I did not realize it was a warez pay-to-play.  (If you look at pages it looks like you can click on links to review the forum, download files, etc.  When you try, you are blocked and must pay to enter).  Others complained and eventually with concensus to remove the link was removed.  I also placed other forums as external links for info on ecco.  (Dirk and compusol have removed those links, and replaced with compusol).  Reason I note this is because this is not some kind of 'forum war' or something.   While am not a wiki expert,  I am one of the worlds top experts on eccoPro,  and have tried to contribute here and other places on a topic I love.  Hopefully that is welcome on this wiki.   Hopefully the compusol spam links are not. YSWT (talk) 14:25, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * One postscript note. In addition removing legit links and inserting the compusol links, they've added garbage text,  one example "In 2005 a 'manual-install' version was made available on several user groups for installation in Windows 7 and 64bit operating systems."  Obviously there was no Windows 7 in 2005, the edit was just garbage.  Moreover, no special install is necessary for windows 7,  the official, free eccopro software runs in Win7.   It is just a scam to sell a 'new' product that doesn't exit.  There are actual updates to the program, officially at the Ecco_Pro forum (and free),  but the compusol inserts remove those key references (official distribution site, specs links, etc.).YSWT (talk) 14:32, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There are quite a number of sentences unreferenced, or unreliably referenced, YSWT. I'll tag that sentence as well.  Both you and EccoProMember are asked to find (reliable) references where possible, or to question sentences which can not be referenced, or question references that are there.  The talk is the place to be.  The last sections are highly unreferenced, and maybe should go altogether.
 * That does not take away, that the forum is still less reliable than the compusol page. But I have been asking you already for a long time for reliable references, with which you can't come up.  Except that every time the forums are included, something that you strongly defend, but which is plainly in violation with what we are doing here, writing an encyclopedia, not a Howto, not a Google-replacement, not a manual, etc.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:16, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Your response is just red herring and not factually true. Seems irrelevant to the spam issue. Clearly EccoProMember  mass link insertion to his site is COI.   "Both you and EccoProMember are asked" as if there is some equivalence between legit editor and spam link inserter.  As if you are some objective editor.  Back in October I fell for this.  But as you only edit this article in conjunction with compusol link insertion you are clearly not objective editor.  "I have been asking you already for a long time for reliable references"  is just silly.  The history is very clear that the only time you are involved with the article are in conjunction with attempts to insert compusol links.   You are not a regular contributor to the article nor have you had any dialog with me other than in relationship to the times you've assisted with the compusol link insertion.  Dirk: The spam inserts to compusol should be removed, the original references to print media should be replaced ,and you should refrain from reverting this article.


 * A pay-to-access site that posts copies of articles from elsewhere on the web with links to its pay-to-access is not a reliable reference. Mass removal of article links and insertion of the pay-to-access pages as 'references' is hijacking of the article. YSWT (talk) 15:45, 12 March 2010 (UTC)

As seen in the diff above, an example of example of link insertion Dirk is passing off as legit:
 * "abandoned, then released free at official user group ref- http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/ecco_pro/files/%2A%2AEcco%20Pro%20v.%204.01%2A%2A/ along with both shareware ref- http://more.eccomagic.com<, free update extensions, and 'eccotools'."

replaced with this garbage:
 * "abandoned in 1967, then in 2004 on an initiative by CompuSol ref- http://www.compusol.org/ecco/netmanage.html released for free use."

Dirk Beetstra had lots of wiki edits and knows his way around, but if you look up close you see it is just a cover for insertion of spam and garbage in the article.

And just to note, the compusol site is not free, to get to the download must pay. In other words the legit article text was removed and bogus text with compusol link inserted.YSWT (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You're barking up the wrong tree if you expect anyone here to believe that Beetstra is not being objective here, as he is one of the most trusted and prolific editors involved with Wikiproject Spam. Beetstra is correct in asserting that while compusol is not an ideal source, it is preferable to a forum (forums are rarely, if ever, considered to be reliable sources). OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:08, 12 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed what I thought back in October. Then noticed on his talk page about 15 serious complaints.  He initially supported removing the historic pricing for the product on the grounds that the prices were listed in US Dollars.  Your comment about compusol is a little odd since compusol IS a forum,  but you must pay to join.  Compusol added about 6 pages of material from other sources,  most of it from the Ecco user's forum,  and added links to the pay-to-play main compusol forum.   Thus,  it is very strange for anyone to try to argue that compusol is 'more reliable'.   Instead, what has been done is the links to the ORIGINAL source has been replaced with compusol's ad page with a copy of that text.  Those pages were then linked as references.   Additionally the link to the legitimate, licensed, original program,  which is not GPL but free per the user's group license,  replaced with the pay-to-download compusol repackaged bootleg.   Final note,  if you'll look at my comments to Beetstra last October,  I had thought he might have 'accidently' assisted with the compusol spamming.  Since that time the only edits he has contributed to the ecco_pro article have been made at the exact same time as the compusol link insertions,  and in support of the compusol links. (am assuming Jamie to be computer literate, but just in case, you realize to to claim windows sofware was abandoned in 1967 is just garbage,  as is the claim the program is at compusol for free, try to download from compusol you'll see that isn't true. However, the official and free distribution is at the Ecco_pro user group,  if that wasn't clear). Again, regarding Beetstra, don't take my word for it-- look at the article history,  examine the actual link insertions, etc.YSWT (talk) 00:39, 14 March 2010 (UTC)

Regardig the tree, YSWT, if you see people complaining to me about link removals, then that should tell you that is what I genrally do, remove links which are not appropriate. I have for a long time said that compusol is not a good source (and I even started a discussion asserting that), but it is a better source than a free forum. The compusol forum is at least not easily accessible, which filters input. The forum that you are moderating is free to all, and everything can be posted there, and it just depends on the moderators what stays. As I said, and what I say again, the forum you are moderating is not a good source, and the way it was used:


 * Free tutorials and information are available on-line
 * ... is actively underway at Ecco's official wiki site EccoWiki.com
 * ... at the eccotools forums and in downloadable format form the files library of the 'new' Yahoo! Ecco_Pro group
 * NetManage premitted continued distribution of the final version as a free download at the official Ecco_Pro user group forum's file section.

.. is not appropriate referencing. Especially the last sentence is a statement that is unreferenced. Yes, I'll assume it is true that there is a free download at the Ecco Pro user group forum, but a) it is unreferenced that NetManage permitted that (you need to reference a document that shows that permission), b) WHO says that the Ecco Pro user group forum is the official forum (again, you need to find somewhere an independent document showing that, you, especially as a moderator (or active user) of said, are not an independent source for that!), and c) it is not of interest where it is downloadable (we are not Google or an installation manual), the fact that it is available for free is the only encyclopedic part of info there.

Now, we are NOWHERE linking directly to a download on Ecco Pro, pages which are used as a reference have indeed the download links there (but the information is free for all, that you need to pay to join is not important, that you need to pay to download is not important, the reference is to-the-point, though not the best, as I have said now several times). I also early on suggested you to discuss which external links (i.e. in an external links section) would be appropriate, and I have also said that these forums may be appropriate there (but I'd like to see independent editors saying that). But when I come back to the page after a couple of months, all I see is edit warring, to keep these links in an inappropriate way in the document, and the document riddled with inappropriate information, unreferenced information, etc. etc. The prices, e.g., besides them being not encyclopedic, are not referenced, so how do we know, except maybe from a forum (which is not a reliable source) if those prices are correct? Do we have to take your word for it? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:37, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

lookatperu.com

 * links


 * accounts


 * Prior link discussion:
 * Talk:Machu Picchu/Archive 1

Multiple SPA accounts have been adding the link over more than a year, with no discussion or even edit summary despite warnings. Current IP is edit warring over the addition of the link, inserting a claim that it was sponsored by the government - however, the site is over-run with tourism spam with multiple adverts and links to travel recommendations. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:10, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * After looking at the history, and the continued edit warring by the current IP, I've also submitted the link at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:22, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

indiainfootball.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 02:59, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Forgot to add this is a typosquatting domain. MER-C 08:34, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Adsense pub-9291737033108347



 * Spammers

MER-C 08:19, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

pakpressads.com
Adsense pub-1610842284125360


 * Spammers
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222
 * Spammed on meta, see m:Special:Contributions/34.254.119.222

MER-C 09:24, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

themonthly.com.au / SlowTV videos
Website Spammer

This one seems to have slipped through the cracks somehow. Of this user's 174 edits dating back to September 2008, all of them are engaged in mass-linking of the site above. All of the edits link to the "SlowTV" portion of the website.  Them From  Space  09:07, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * And from the user's talk we see that they created SlowTV which was presumably an article on the site being featured in all the links. I noticed the additions but wondered if they were somehow useful anyway. I haven't taken the time to look at a video. The issue of sites with videos is going to arise more frequently as media outlets try to compete, and it's hard to convince oneself, let alone others, of the merits of a video. Johnuniq (talk) 09:36, 11 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This editor was back at it today. I have reverted them. I think this editor should be blocked. Novaseminary (talk) 03:25, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

mksoley.com

 * Sites spammed

Suspected related:


 * Related domains
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to
 * redirects via frameset to


 * redirects to soley.cn
 * redirects to soley.cn
 * redirects to soley.cn
 * redirects to soley.cn


 * Spammers
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question
 * Mustafa Soley registrant of the domains in question


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see tr:Special:Contributions/85.100.12.175
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see tr:Special:Contributions/85.100.12.175
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see tr:Special:Contributions/85.100.12.175


 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.243.252.140
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.243.252.140


 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.251.99.191
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/88.251.99.191


 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/81.214.227.22
 * Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see tr:Special:Contributions/81.214.227.22

All "Soley Institute" domains have the same content. MER-C 02:24, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

User page spam
Users using their user pages for spam is no new phenomenon, but there has been a slew of heavy userpage spamming recently. The spammers start by creating lots of "cheap medication without prescriptions" articles on other Wiki sites as well as create spam blogs on sites like www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs which allow free blog creation, and then they come here, create an account and fill their user page with links to all their off-Wikipedia spam. Here is a typical example.

I have bookmarked external link search for a couple of the domains used (cuelc.eu and dezinedepot.com) to find new incarnations of the spammer, but blacklisting the domains themselves is probably not worth it. I'm not sure if anything can be done about this - should I file a CU request to possibly get the login IP blocked?


 * Users

--bonadea contributions talk 15:41, 13 March 2010 (UTC)
 * There's no harm in trying (plus you might find more spam). MER-C 03:02, 14 March 2010 (UTC)



Some tracking data. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

I filed a CU request, and all the accounts and the underlying IP have been blocked. --bonadea contributions talk 22:17, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ENG - eng-llc.com




these guys keep adding their company name to ENG. it's not even a link to another wikipedia article or to a web page, so i'm pretty that this qualifies as spam. the most recent edit from the first ip is also now engaging in personal attacks too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.101.16.225 (talk • contribs)

Also:



Thanks for the report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

ChrisEaton80 thetankblanket.com
Thparkth (talk) 16:03, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

console-spot.com

 * links


 * accounts

SPA account spamming link onto large number of articles. Does not engage in discussion despite warnings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:01, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

New Userpage as a spam/promotion tool


this user's userpage contains spam intended to promote his legal firm, without cause or explanation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 21:42, 19 March 2010 (UTC)
 * User has been user-name blocked by MuZemike and the user page deleted. Johnuniq (talk) 22:34, 19 March 2010 (UTC)

Userpage User:Trunks8719
Seems to be a bio page for a non-notable person who is trying to promote himself. The person doesn't edit it with their userpage but with an IP since the person doesn't use their account that much.--Everyone Dies In the End (talk) 00:39, 20 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The proper venue for self-promotional userpages is WP:MFD. However, the nomination may not succeed because a quick glance at the contributions gives this user is actually interested in editing articles. MER-C 07:00, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

nagapattinamonline.com



 * Spammers
 * "Parthiban M" owner of the sites in question
 * "Parthiban M" owner of the sites in question
 * "Parthiban M" owner of the sites in question

MER-C 08:27, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Report was blanked by in this edit. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:19, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

facesofwarsaw.com
Adsense pub-5145649019196139




 * Spammers

MER-C 13:51, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

itravelkaki.com

 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.50.97.139
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.50.97.139


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.54.41.11
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.54.41.11
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.54.41.11
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.54.41.11
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see zh:Special:Contributions/60.54.41.11


 * Spammed on Chinese Wikipedia, see zh:Special:Contributions/219.95.223.126
 * Spammed on Chinese Wikipedia, see zh:Special:Contributions/219.95.223.126
 * Spammed on Chinese Wikipedia, see zh:Special:Contributions/219.95.223.126
 * Spammed on Chinese Wikipedia, see zh:Special:Contributions/219.95.223.126

MER-C 08:27, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

klikfc.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 08:34, 21 March 2010 (UTC)

biddingware.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of commercial linkspam into multiple auction related websites. Added by SPA accounts that are, thus far, all within the same IP range. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:49, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added IP 195.91.79.249 to the list above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added IP 195.91.79.233 to the list above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:39, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

sss.fifthestate.co.uk 5th Estate / Press Books / Harper Collins Publisher spam
100% link spam

Mainly

one instance of

Replaced links reverted by others.

Please can someone do a rollback ? Thanks, -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 11:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

wermac.org

 * Spammers

MER-C 12:48, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

wroughtironweb.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of link into multiple articles, in some cases creating faulty/malformed ref tags while inserting. Primarilly a commercial site - although does have at least two pages that appear to be non-commercial/historical in nature. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:51, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

pharmaxchange.info
Cleaned up 20 or so recent links, still others remaining in WP.




 * Spammers



CliffC (talk) 18:14, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

shareflare.net (cross wiki spam)
Frequently added to C++Builder and Turbo C++ from anonymous IP addresses.





--DaBler (talk) 18:28, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Added 81.30.83.40 which is also spamming the link. The link being added is a file-sharing site with a prominent PayPal payment request to download files.  Suggest XLinkBot or WP:SBL if this continues due to the persistent nature and the IP jumping involved. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:36, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've submitted a request to WP:SBL - note that the same links are also being spammed to de, fr, nl, it, es, zh, and ro. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've submitted a request to WP:SBL - note that the same links are also being spammed to de, fr, nl, it, es, zh, and ro. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:22, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

hellfoods.com

 * links


 * accounts

Possible COI editor adding commercial link and advert wording to the Hell, Michigan article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:58, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

youlay.net
Adsense pub-8559235193718753


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


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 11:29, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

projectmanagementguides.com et al.
Caught 121.247.146.2, once blocked for a month, but only contributions are link additions. Now blocked for a year. Looking further:


 * links
 * on
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com
 * Also on trylogin.com


 * users

I'll add this all to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

imow.org

 * Spammers


 * Website
 * }

The two "Kwalt" username variations are adding gratuitous links to imow.org. Another editor, User:IMOW, was already blocked a year and a half ago for spamming to the same site. The editor would seem to have a COI as a potential staff member. Novaseminary (talk) 14:04, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion

wrlc.org

 * User


 * Website

This user has been adding gratuitous links to this site for some time now, through this hour. It seems this is the only purpose of the account. Novaseminary (talk) 14:13, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Discussion

bidnow2getfree.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of advert linkspam to the Reverse auction article. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:42, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

trustedtablets.com



 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 07:32, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 14:20, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

hwswworld.com

 * Spammers

MER-C 08:56, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

freebiesland.com
Adsense pub-5520215282640111




 * Spammers

MER-C 09:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

workingauthor.com
Adsense pub-0474692673647952




 * Spammers

MER-C 09:24, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

medicanalife.org
Adsense pub-3132917916465494


 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2009 Archive Dec 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jan 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jan 2


 * Sites spammed
 * redirects to
 * redirects to


 * redirects to
 * redirects to


 * already blacklisted
 * already blacklisted




 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see


 * Spammed on French Wikipedia, see fr:Special:Contributions/78.165.95.225
 * Spammed on French Wikipedia, see fr:Special:Contributions/78.165.95.225

MER-C 14:18, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

TV show links to commercial site
This is a concerted effort to place many commercial links into articles about recent TV shows, giving the justification that references are necessary for uncontested facts such as air date. Piano non troppo (talk) 02:58, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * At this stage, I think that WP:TV or WP:ELN or WP:RSN may be better venues for discussion of the use of those links as refs. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:26, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * I wasn't sure how fully to explain the situation. A group of editors is replacing external links to amazon.com and other commercial sites, giving little or no justification. I found tne article List of Smallville episodes in the course of anti-vandalism patrol. It is one of the handful of outstanding article examples where very many external links to amazon.com and other commercial sites are being added to support information that is not particularly in question. If these kinds of edits were allowed, hundreds of thousands of Wikipedia articles would have links where they do not now. Therefore, these links aren't according to policy or practice. Thanks, Piano non troppo (talk) 04:00, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * A "group"?? You mean every editor of TV articles? It is not a concerted effort to place "many commercial links" but rather actually sourcing content. Claiming they are "spam" is complete BS. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

fashionmoods.com edhardydeals.com



 * Spammers

Garden variety Chinese online shopping spam. MER-C 09:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Adsense pub-9720784389258046

 * No Adsense
 * No Adsense
 * No Adsense
 * No Adsense
 * No Adsense
 * No Adsense
 * No Adsense


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


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see

MER-C 09:59, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

nndb.com
There are currently 3109 external links to www.nndb.com which seems to me to be link spam. A lot of them are in articles about living people. Nndb appears to be a bare-bones database, and any info in the nndb entries either should be in the WP article (making the nndb link superfluous) or is inappropriate for the article on policy grounds (in which case the link should not be allowed either). So I think we should launch a bot to clean up these links. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:36, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

The Sider Group



 * Sites spammed



Other spammed:
 * Appears dead
 * Appears dead




 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 03:02, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Candlestick Trading



 * Related domains


 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.44.89
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.44.89
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.44.89
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.44.89
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.44.89
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.44.89


 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.56
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.56
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.56


 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.155
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.155


 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.148
 * Spammed on Spanish Wikipedia, see es:Special:Contributions/87.217.45.148

MER-C 03:15, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 13:49, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

creativewealthstrategies.blogspot.com

 * links


 * accounts

Repeated addition of non-notable blog which is actually an advertisement for the blacklisted site creativewealthstrategies.co.cc. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:00, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

mbfindustries.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 03:27, 27 March 2010 (UTC)




 * Added to XLinkBot. If persists .. blacklist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:43, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Multiple use of commercial links
Ok, here is the question: "Is it considered 'spamming' an article if you are using a commercial link to verify the release dates of home video products, if you do not have any other source confirming the date of release?" - I'm referring to the use of a commercial link to verify dates that are in the US, and in Regions 2 and 4 of the world (UK and Australia), when articles that talk about the home video don't explicitely state the release date of the product. This page says that commercial links are acceptable, but the Catch-22 is that the links to those websites (e.g., Amazon, or Australian website EZY-DVD) could be more than one. For page example, see List of Smallville episodes, List of Seinfeld episodes, List of Supernatural episodes, List of Stargate SG-1 episodes, or List of Numb3rs episodes. I just picked a few pages from the Featured Lists category to show that it isn't something new. Since the reliability of Amazon is not in question, just the repeated use of it, or some other form of commercial website to verify a basic number (i.e. Home video release), is it considered "spam"?  BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  14:33, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * There is not one, but several problems with this approach. Any is sufficient reason to disallow multiple WP:SPAM links to amazon.com and other sites whose main purpose is to sell products. The basic problem is adding references for information that no one is questioning. Using this logic dozens of commercial links can be added to hundreds of thousands of articles. There's no limit to "facts" that might be "referenced" -- every one an invitation for commercial web sites to "verify" information. And if a commercial site wants to get themselves added, all they have to do is add some minor information to a Wiki article -- information that "needs to be sourced". I.e., there would be nothing to stop commercial sites from placing WP:SPAM in any Wiki article in which they have a commercial interest. Piano non troppo (talk) 17:18, 27 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Then guess what, I'm questioning it. I don't know if the show was released on the dates the page claims, without a source verifying it. I don't know if the show was even released in Regions 2 and 4, because I don't live in the UK or Australia. Per the policy on verifiability, I have challenged the information and so it needs to be sourced, as it is not common knowledge of when these seasons were released on DVD. As a matter of fact, if I asked any random persons, who know what Smallville, Stargate, Supernatural, Numbers, or Seinfeld are, I guarantee you that not a single one will be able to tell me what the date was when those shows were released on home video. Thus, it requires a source.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  19:30, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
 * If the info is not sourceable to publications that establish notability, it is not notable, so if you are really challenging the info in good faith, the necessary response to the challenge is to remove the info rather than sourcing it to a retailer. See WP:IINFO.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 00:39, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Well, release dates for home video releases are worth mentioning, and even WP:WPSPAM says you can use commercial sites as sources. I have personally removed half of the commercial sites being used, but unless someone has access to websites in the United Kingdom, it would be kind of hard to find verification for Region 2 release dates. And since Wikipedia isn't the American Wikipedia, we cannot simply ignore the fact that shows were released in other countries.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  01:04, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't agree that the home video release dates are worth mentioning unless you can find sources that establish notability for them. Wikipedia is not IMDB and doesn't aim to exhaustively report every fact that might exist about a movie or tv show.  IMDB probably has the release dates and people seeking the dates can look there.  If the info isn't even on IMDB, that's even more reason to think it's not relevant enough for Wikipedia. 66.127.52.47 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Two things. The first is that release dates for TV shows has been an established content criteria for some time. The second is that I think you misunderstand what notability is designed for. Notability is strictly for a topic's inclusion in Wikipedia as an article, it has nothing to do specifically with article content. As a matter of fact, WP:NOTE says, "Notability does not directly affect the content of articles, but only their existence". It goes into slightly more detail at WP:NNC. So, the "notability" of a release date is rather irrelevant. Wikipedia requires that articles be comprehensive, that means also noting that a film or television show have been released to the general public. In this case, we note when they were released, and we compare that across different regions of the world.   BIGNOLE     (Contact me)  02:20, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We are not talking about the release date for a TV show. It's about the release date for one edition of a related media product, so its notability is already two levels removed from that of the TV show itself.  WP:IINFO says "merely being true, or even verifiable, does not automatically make something suitable for inclusion in the encyclopedia".  "Inclusion in the encyclopedia" means exactly what it says.  As WP:WEIGHT explains, "the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all."  If you want to establish that the DVD date is reported by more than a tiny minority of sources, you have to find those sources.  I agree though that this is not a spam issue unless you have a WP:COI.  Try some other venue.  66.127.52.47 (talk) 05:03, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not "spam" anymore than it is spam to use official sites to source basic information on a person, company, etc. claiming that it is spam to reference episode (and chapter lists as Piano has apparently decided to start ripping out those sources as well) with the official site versus not having a reference is absolutely ridiculous. Who knows better when they released a book than the company. And yes, it is challengable and challenged (FYI, in FL/FA, EVERY fact is considered challenged and EVERY claim must be referenced). Wikipedia does not demand that any reliable source be a "publication", and such a request or demand is beyond ridiculous. Release dates for television shows, episodes, and books are a very basic element of their nature. Also, this discussion should be announced to the Film, TV, all book projects, comics, and to WP:RS. It is not a spam issue at all. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 02:47, 28 March 2010 (UTC)


 * It's a WP:SPAM issue, because it's not about whether a particular Wiki editor was acting in good faith adding the links, but whether Amazon.com and others can manipulate Wiki for their purpose: which is to add as many links to their sales pages as possible. The purpose of Amazon.com is purely to make money. They are not an encyclopedia. If there needs to be references to dates, the references can from public libarary material, etc. Bignole, WP:WPSPAM is exactly what is under discussion, second para reads "Many web site operators still seek to use Wikipedia to increase the number of inbound links to their sites, some either out of ignorance of SEO functionality or of this policy change, others because they simply hope to draw individual readers to their site through direct Wikipedia traffic."
 * But another issue is NOT whether the dates are challengable in theory, but whether they actually are challenged. I'm on anti-vandalism patrol -- I have 10,000s of edits. Offhand, I don't recall any vandalism changes to air dates. That only leaves legitimate differences of opinion. And how often does that happen? A single footnote reference or footnote to amazon saying "Airdates come from amazon.com" would suffice.
 * Collectionian, please provide examples where an FA process failed because there weren't citations on air dates.
 * I'm especially concerned that people aren't considering the big picture, that if uncontested airdates "need" references, then so do production dates, release dates, writers, directers, producers, shooting locations, etc. Piano non troppo (talk) 10:12, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * That is an invalid request because any FA would fail with unreferenced material. I have no time nor desire to go through them all to hunt for some for you. Please instead provide recent FAs that actually passed today's FAC with unreferenced airdates. Its an even bigger issue with lists, which is where you tried to remove valid, reliable sources because of this odd idea that it is somehow spam. And yes, production and release dates need referencing, and of course locations do. Otherwise anyone could make any crap up they wanted (and frequently do). You can't just claim Series X is filmed in Y because you want to. Wikipedia does not operate on the idea of "eh, put what you like, it looks good enough", but on actual verifiability. The best of the best articles exemplify this through thorough sourcing, including of dates claimed. Writers, directors, and producers are generally referenced from the work themselves, something that can not be done for dates and locations. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

I have been looking at one example, and I could find several sources for this information. Is so, I would discourage the use of a site which is aimed at selling the product (and has information as a side-product), but rely earlier on a site which is maybe commercial in background, but which is not aimed at selling the product (but more specialised in providing information, but maybe selling something as well). E.g., release dates for a whole set of Smallville episodes is available from imdb, while I see jb hifi online and amazon being used throughout for the same info instead. I think we can regard all three a 'reliable source', though I wonder how 'independent' a seller is in reporting a release date (though I don't see why it would be incorrect)

Regarding, does it need to be sourced, I would say, if a piece of information can be reliably sourced then it should, that helps in making this Wikipedia more reliable in the end. Question remains, is it notable; Wikipedia is not a database (feels to me like needless statistics ..).. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * IMDB is not a reliable source, hence its not being used. -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:19, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Funny, that says something about the commercial sites .. no editorial oversight, no peer review either .. not reliable I would then say as well. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:20, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * What does it say about commercial sites? Nothing. Amazon.com is not user edited. IMDB is. Official company sites are not user edited either, and primary sources are acceptable for referencing material, just not for establishing notability. And third-party sources do not have to be "peer reviewed" (which would eliminate all news and book sources as well as most magazine sources). -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 13:30, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If Amazon or another sales site is the only place that is listing a release date for a particular movie in a particular region, I don't see the problem (it can always be updated later with a different source when one becomes available). I have several sites bookmarked I use for DVD releases but they all cover only region one (and don't include many movies that a mainstream American audience might find obscure so there is a completeness issue there). I went looking (briefly, I may have missed something) for a site that covered release dates for multiple regions and found none; I was able to find one or more for each individual region. So to sum up, the ONLY places I know of currently where you can find COMPLETE home media release info are sales sites. So is the suggestion that, instead, we list a different source for each release date but don't list a region's ETA at all if it's release date can only be found on a sales site? Because that's kind of silly. Millahnna (mouse) talk  13:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. If there is a reliable, non-commercial site out there that lists release dates by all means, we could use that. But if there isn't, using amazon or similar commercial sites is the logical thing to do. Removing valuable information from Wikipedia because amazon might profit from it is just plain silly. --Conti|✉ 13:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Linking to sites like Amazon is also against WP:ELNO #5 (and #15 for books) as you are in essence picking one store over another, Amazon have surely got their information from somewhere so find that source and reference it. If no one else anywhere is reporting this then surely WP:DEADLINE kicks in - we aren't in any rush to add that information in so wait for a better source. For release dates I'm fine with using the official site for such basic information (permitted under WP:ELOFFICIAL, as long as it conforms to WP:SELFPUB) but there are numerous sites out there that track DVD releases as part of their coverage and I imagine we could use those too. I can't remember which one I used to visit but there are a number of general site  although again they are probably just reporting on a company's press release, however, they may add other reporting and some context which could be handy. So I'd avoid links to stores as much as possible (there may be exceptions, like when they have creators sections on their site) and if you can't find a source other than Amazon then you should be asking yourself why that is - is it wrong? Is it too early (in which case we can wait)? (Emperor (talk) 14:41, 29 March 2010 (UTC))
 * Amazon is frequently used not to give preference to one store of another, but because of its size and being one of the few retailers that actually bothers including release date information for the various media (which goes beyond just DVDs) not just for newer stuff, but older as well. For books, sometimes WorldCat can be used, but often times Amazon may be the only accessible source. VHS tapes are horrendously difficult to source beyond Amazon.com. Yes, they got the info from somewhere, but they aren't running around sharing where either. And you can't just leave something unsourced if you are going for an FAC or FLC, nor can you leave out important details. Amazon is a "last resort" source, but that doesn't make it unusable and EL does not apply to sources. It isn't an issue of "too early" but often "too old" where print sources may be lost or difficult to find and online ones don't care because its "pre-Internet". -- AnmaFinotera  (talk · contribs) 14:57, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The guideline for external links (WP:EL) does not apply to links within references, so your entire argument is invalid. As I and others have said, if a better source than amazon can be used, then by all means, we should use that source. If not, use amazon, or whatever reliable source (commercial or not) has the information. --Conti|✉ 15:01, 29 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Your examples sort of illustrate my point. Comingsoon.net (one of the sites I was thinking of in my bookmarks), only details region one releases and misses a lot of foreign films released in region one. DVD Talk sources all of their links directly to Amazon with affiliate links.  I truly don't see how that's any different than linking to Amazon directly; now two sites are getting paid instead of only one. They are also primarily focused on region one (the dates on their site correspond to U.S. releases only).  I could see using either site for information about region one specifically, but that still leaves out 2-5.  Millahnna (mouse)  talk  15:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

If it's sourceable to a non-commercial reliable source, then use that. If the best source to be found is a reliable commercial site, then use that. Release date is not "notable"? Here we roam into the land of fanaticism (see Santayana's definition). Is it "notable" to be born on January 30, 1882? No it is not. So by this insane application of "notability" not to articles, but now to every fact within an article we should start removing release dates, birth dates, etc., etc., etc. No. As editors we are not here to fight spam, or vandalism, or to make rules, or to play absurd games with rules we have concocted, or to write a treatise on how to write an encyclopedia, etc., etc., etc., We are here to write an encyclopedia. Editors who advocate such nonsense have forgotten our aim and redoubled their efforts. Dekkappai (talk) 14:47, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The people who find it necessary to add dozens of reference links for information that no one questions are the fanatics. I'm a webmaster, I deal with these fanatics all the time. The marketing manager who wants 500 links added to their new product -- completely unconvinced that -- analyzing my weekly reports, overlinking doesn't improve the clickthrough numbers. They *believe* in linking. So some people *believe* in references. Items such as birthdates and pop chart rank have financial impact, increase or decrease fame. Those will always be scrutinized. Air dates are nothing like these, and don't need linking. Compare with most quality published books. Is every phrase documented by a footnote? No, the vast majority have a couple footnotes per page. Anything else is just a burden for writer and editor, and interfers with the "friendliness" of the text. Do what those who have access to analytical Web statistics, and to historical publishing successes do: Omit footnotes that aren't necessary to establish those facts that are liable to be questioned. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 18:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * On a philosophical standpoint, I actually agree with you. There is such a thing as "too many references", and adding a footnote to every sentence does not necessarily improve the quality of the article. But knowing where a release date is coming from is always better than not knowing it, especially since dates, numbers, ages, etc. are the prime target of sneaky vandalism. And in the end, your point doesn't seem to be about using amazon as a source, but about using sources for trivial information in general. --Conti|✉ 19:07, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Conti, it may be that others are seeing a "different face" of this than I. Most of my edits are with Mike's Wiki Tool — which only handles anon IP vandals. Those anon IP vandals tend to make edits that defame, exaggerate or diminish accomplishments. Neutral information such as air dates don't seem to be a common target for them. I would welcome statistical analysis.
 * I actually didn't start with a point, as such. In the course of normal anti-vandalism, I ran into articles that had an unusually large number of links to amazon.com. That seemed to be WP:SPAM. Those original edits of mine were reverted with no explanation, or hostility, not citing Wiki guidelines or policies, except bogus ones such as "everything should be cited". From there, I realized a clarifying discussion would be useful to everyone, so I've been riding out the storm. Regards, Piano non troppo (talk) 21:59, 29 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't have statistical analysis, just personal experience. And that tells me that the most common form of sneaky vandalism is consisting of anons randomly changing unreferenced numbers without any comment. Without a reference, there's no way of telling if it's vandalism at all, or merely a helpful correction. That alone should warrant using references in such cases. In addition, lots of links to one site does not necessarily mean spam. Maybe that site is simply a very useful one for referencing, and therefore used by a lot of people. --Conti|✉ 11:41, 30 March 2010 (UTC)
 * I've seen the same thing as Conti. It may be neutral but it's easy to vandalize. It requires no creativity to change a date and without a reference one has to hunt up a reliable source to verify it. Amazon is a store and shouldn't be used as an external link in most instances, but its release/publication dates aren't user-edited and it is a reliable reference. As commented above, if there's another reliable, non-commercial source, use that. If not, Amazon may be used to source such facts. Galatee (talk) 17:24, 31 March 2010 (UTC)