Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Dec 1

Internet Brands spam on Wikipedia
Parked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands for now. MER-C 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam by Santa 777
has been spamming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Politics with links.

If I've put this in the wrong place or the wrong way, please let me know via my talk page. Thanks. Colon el Tom 12:21, 30 November 2011 (UTC)




 * Additionally:


 * All reverted. MER-C 11:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * All reverted. MER-C 11:53, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

musicpopcorn.com
Adsense pub-6351504057647080




 * Spammers

MER-C 11:47, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Medicalopedia
There's a COI editor adding links all over the place to a site called "Medicalopedia". I'm not sure in how far that is a reliable source, but it strikes me as a bit spammy. Perhaps someone from this project can take a look? Thanks. --Guillaume2303 (talk) 09:26, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

India travel spam

 * links


 * accounts

Rapid addition of links into multiple articles, replacing existing references, external links, categories, navboxes, and/or inter-wiki links while simultaneously adding these new links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:46, 2 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two blocks so far => MER-C 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two blocks so far => MER-C 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two blocks so far => MER-C 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Two blocks so far => MER-C 06:56, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Solidarity International userpage spam

 * Spam pages
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Rajendra Gautam
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Nepal
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Nepal
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Asia
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Asia
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International America
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International America
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Africa
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Africa
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Australia and Oceania
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Australia and Oceania
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Europe
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Europe
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Rajendra Gautam
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Nepal
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Nepal
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Asia
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Asia
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International America
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International America
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Africa
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Africa
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Australia and Oceania
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Australia and Oceania
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता:Solidarity International Europe
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Europe
 * ne:प्रयोगकर्ता वार्ता:Solidarity International Europe


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers


 * See also
 * Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Rajendra Gautam
 * commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Rajendra Gautam.jpg
 * commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:End illiteracy now.jpg
 * commons:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Mission Literacy.jpg

MER-C 08:21, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

restorationsos.com



 * Spammers
 * Spammed on Malagasy Wikipedia, see mg:Special:Contributions/Waterremoval
 * Spammed on Malagasy Wikipedia, see mg:Special:Contributions/Waterremoval
 * Spammed on Malagasy Wikipedia, see mg:Special:Contributions/Waterremoval
 * Spammed on Malagasy Wikipedia, see mg:Special:Contributions/Waterremoval

Spam with no regard to article subject. MER-C 08:29, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Adworkshop Inc. Marketing and Advertising Agency

 * Spammed
 * Spammed


 * other related
 * User:Bartosik/Health Research Incorporated
 * Accounts
 * User:Bartosik/Health Research Incorporated
 * Accounts
 * User:Bartosik/Health Research Incorporated
 * Accounts
 * User:Bartosik/Health Research Incorporated
 * Accounts
 * User:Bartosik/Health Research Incorporated
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Current spam campaign involves their (adworkshop.com/portfolio/industry/travel-hospitality)--Hu12 (talk) 02:47, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

picturecarolina.com

 * link


 * accounts

Multiple SPA IP accounts dropping the url to a non-notable personal photoblog into multiple articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:31, 4 December 2011 (UTC)

Links to Popoca

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Persistant HyperLinking to the Popoca article on es.wikipedia all the above accounts seem to be the sole editors (along with a whole host of related IP's) according to the articles history. strange...--Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

Constant adding link to software while not modyfing the page
For past month or so, one user that have IP starting with

or

is constantly changing page with his link and software name without adding any new relevant information.

While I even suggested him to add that software to table in a correct way, he completely ignore it and continue his not meaningful modifications of that page.

Page - Comparison of iSCSI targets

--Boleon (talk) 02:54, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, it appears you are spamming the proprietary KernSafe products, in preference to the open-source Nexenta Community Edition ones from the IP edits. Is there something subtle I'm missing? LeadSongDog come howl!  08:12, 18 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Nexenta is not an open-source software iSCSI target (nor they have a free version), or I'm really missing something? Also some of products on that page (iSCSI Targets) are fully commercial, while KernSafe have a completely free version available. I also try to update page with useful information, not just spam with links. In summary - I try to contribute to Wikipedia users. --Boleon (talk) 09:05, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

KernSafe Technologies, Inc SPAM

 * Appears spamming for KernSafe Technologies, Inc has been an longterm ongoing issue;
 * Article spam
 * KernSafe iStorage Server
 * Accounts
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 18 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Continued spamming by, blocked--Hu12 (talk) 16:36, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

No reliable source
This article have no reliable source. Looks like advertisement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarWind_Software — Preceding unsigned comment added by Boleon (talk • contribs) 04:09, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * While a closer look at StarWind Software is probably needed, It has become apparent that this and related IP's and SOCK accounts are only being used for the promotion of KernSafe Technologies, Inc. products. (perma-link). More concerning here is the repeated promotion, deletion and vandalism of compettitors links including StarWind Software and replacing others (including citations) with kernsafe.com product links . In addition to this account being a Spam / advertising-only account, it has repeatedly engaged in edit warring on both the ISCSI and Comparison of iSCSI targets pages . This is clearly a continued attempt to promote KernSafe Technologies, Inc's adgenda, directly and indirectly, by attacking its compettiors and gaming the system. So per wikipedia's Blocking policy;
 * BLOCK
 * vandalism
 * edit warring
 * Persistent spamming
 * Breaching the sock puppetry policy;
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising nor is it a place to import business conflicts. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a business. Blocked--Hu12 (talk) 14:11, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

http://www.thecarportdepot.com and http://www.boleylawgroup.com
User has added the first link once and the 2nd link thrice. The second user only added the first link to Carport.--Breawycker public (talk) main account (talk) 21:02, 21 November 2011 (UTC)


 * More links
 * Additional Accounts
 * Additional Accounts


 * boleylawgroup.com and tickettom.com are Boley & Groover, P.C, "Thomas Boley". All the domains share the same Domain servers.--Hu12 (talk) 13:37, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * felt the need to blank this report. The same IP also spammed:
 * MER-C 11:50, 1 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moar:
 * MER-C 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Moar:
 * MER-C 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 02:44, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

columnpk.com



 * Accounts

MER-C 05:41, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

htfilmindir.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:47, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Stub Area Networking
Articles Accounts

This newly added user inserts stubarea.net links (e.g. http://www.stubarea.net/workbooks/cisco/ccna/section-7-configuring-routing-information-protocol/) into various Internet Protocol articles. (Examples:   ) He/she reinserts them after they're deleted (example: ) and (so far) refuses to discuss the links or his/her actions. He/she also omits edit summary data and occasionally marks these edits "Minor".

I hope this is the correct format and content for this report--it is my first one. I will be researching the matter and adding to this report as I find more information. Please let me know if it needs other work. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 04:58, 9 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Mgeorge27 just removed the templates I added to his Talk page and complained that people had removed his links, saying they are "beneficial". &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 05:35, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

$ whois stubarea.net Registrant: Matthew George User has a conflict of interest with respect to this site. MER-C 05:00, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

APPEAL: Posting external links on wiki pages to websites that provide completely free educational content does not violate any wiki policies. Several of the existing external links on pages that I've posted links on are to websites that provide a similar type of freely educational content and have NOT been discussed in the discussion page(s). Most of the pages that I've posted links on has not had any legitimate (non-moderation) user discussion activity within the last year or greater.

The website in question does NOT sell any products, it provides educational content free of charge to individuals seeking network engineering training. The only registration required on the website is to access a Cisco Lab that is also freely available to individuals who cannot afford $2000 dollars or greater in Cisco hardware to prepare for Cisco Certification Exam(s).

I urge administration to disregard this spam report and allow for these links to exist as the very foundation of the Wikipedia website exist to promote free education and collaborative learning. Mgeorge27 (talk) 18:10, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The site may not sell a product, but it does contain advertising, hence the obvious WP:COI here. Since there isn't widespread abuse (sockpuppetry, etc), it doesn't merit a blacklisting yet, but the user should be blocked indefinitely if they add the link again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:17, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Many websites contain advertisements including existing external links on the page(s) in question. The website in question, Stub Area Networking is able to bring visitors free educational content by donations and limited advertisements to pay for hosting, power, internet access and other expenses. All revenue made from advertisements goes back into the website. For example; it was the advertisement revenue that paid for the Stub Lab which gives visitors the opportunity to use a fully functional Cisco Lab to prepare for certification exams at no cost to them. This Stub Lab cost approximately $3,500 dollars to build which would make it extremely hard for people build a lab of this magnitude to study on. There are only two websites on the entire internet that provide this invaluable resource.

I will however honor your request and not post any more links to this website. Mgeorge27 (talk) 20:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

"Broadband bonding" page
Created this page, which seems to be spam: Broadband bonding

Added links to that page to Channel bonding

Has edited Mushroom Networks

"Broadband Bonding" appears to be trademarked name for a product sold by Mushroom Networks, and the only reference on the broadband bonding page is obvious astroturf. Also, the assertion that "Broadband Bonding" is a type of channel bonding is a bit silly (and obviously false). This came to my attention when somebody came on dslreports spamming about this same thing in a thread about somebody's GPL'd MLPPP bonding project

Guspaz (talk) 22:44, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Bingo. is also suspect. MER-C 04:53, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

The broadband bonding page depends on a single source, which is a blog-like page that would not pass WP:RS muster. &mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 09:24, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

StarWind Software Inc.
Registrant; Berman, Artem (also CEO) Anton Kolomyeytsev,Chief Technology Officer, StarWind Software
 * Related
 * Articles
 * Related
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles

StarWind Software
 * Articles for deletion/StarWind Software
 * Articles for deletion/StarWind Software (2nd nomination)

StarWind Software Inc. StarWind Software User:Rndchief/Starwind
 * Accounts


 * commons:Special:Contributions/Runa zor
 * ru:Special:Contributions/Runa zor


 * Special:DeletedContributions/CostyaV


 * ru:Special:Contributions/193.254.217.82
 * pl:Special:Contributions/193.254.217.82
 * nl:Special:Contributions/193.254.217.82
 * fr:Special:Contributions/193.254.217.82
 * es:Special:Contributions/193.254.217.82
 * de:Special:Contributions/193.254.217.82


 * ru:Special:Contributions/89.175.178.91


 * ru:Special:Contributions/88.81.226.30


 * fr:Special:Contributions/173.9.49.106


 * ru:Special:Contributions/46.211.183.244


 * ru:Special:Contributions/46.211.183.197

--Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
 * added another--Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Clever IP Spammer using talk pages
This spammer has a new technique I haven't seen: he starts a whole new section on a talk page titled "Administration", and claims in the text to have just deleted spam from someone, and helpfully includes the link of the website "they" were trying to spam us with. All his edits are external link spam, most MiamiSouthBeach.Org, but recently more sites about wallpaper. Tom Hulse (talk) 08:14, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I removed four spams and checked that other editors had already removed the rest. The IP has plenty of warnings and was blocked for two weeks at one stage. I think the only "Administration" spam was at Talk:Thanksgiving (United States) (the others were plain spam). Johnuniq (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

Adsense pub-3789471242515425 Google Analytics UA-18921302


 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains
 * redirects to goto-financial.com
 * redirects to goto-financial.com
 * redirects to goto-financial.com
 * redirects to goto-financial.com


 * redirects to goto-financial.com
 * redirects to goto-financial.com


 * redirects to goto-financial.com
 * redirects to goto-financial.com



$ whois thanksgivingwallpaper.org Registrant: 305Layer Holdings 900 West Avenue Miami Beach, Florida 33139 United States

MER-C 10:52, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

test-pattern.com
I made a creative commons site called test-pattern.com and it used to be an external link in the test pattern article. Suddenly I was black listed. I don't know why, I want to request taking it off the black list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.68.76.88 (talk) 10:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This site is listed on the global blacklist; appeals may be filed at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. However, you will probably be wasting your time appealing because we do not delist domains at the request of site owners. MER-C 11:07, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

muchtutorials.com
Adsense pub-6032233746691249 Google Analytics UA-26714166


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 05:45, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 11:38, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

page2anesthesiology.org WP:REFSPAM

 * Redirect site to page2anesthesiology.org
 * Article spam"
 * Article spam"


 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 10:56, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Spamming

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:38, 17 December 2011 (UTC)

eventspakistan.com
Adsense pub-0693420800185102


 * Previous incidents


 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2011


 * Sites spammed
 * redirects to:
 * redirects to:


 * blacklisted locally
 * blacklisted locally


 * Related domains


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



MER-C 05:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Spamming for Messy Witchen
Owner of a cooking blog named Messy Witchen, this editor's sole contributions have been adding her website to various food pages. I've left a warning for both spam and conflict of interest, but I wanted to mark it here since she's been doing this off and on since May of this year. I just wanted to list this here since her editing history suggests that she might return to do more edits. All of her edits have been removed or reverted.Tokyogirl79 (talk) 06:20, 19 December 2011 (UTC)tokyogirl79


 * Adsense pub-6904816119508308, Google Analytics UA-177648


 * Related domain


 * Added templates for future reference. MER-C 11:59, 19 December 2011 (UTC)

Assorted Nepal domains



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:22, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

tuziw.com



 * Spammers

There's some additional spam on zh.wp, which I can't be bothered with at the moment. MER-C 12:09, 20 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted globally by Billinghurst. MER-C 01:33, 21 December 2011 (UTC)

rightbooks.in

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 08:12, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

tgadget.net

 * link


 * accounts

An SPA user adding same url into multiple related websites, and attempting to conceal the link being added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 08:34, 23 December 2011 (UTC)

75.108.226.198
This IP has added links to "http://www.AlwaysFreeXboxLive.com" on Talk:Xbox Live. -- Hounder4 (T)  (C) 11:56, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Post-Reformation Digital Library Spamming

 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles


 * Accounts


 * de:Special:Contributions/192.231.177.21
 * fy:Special:Contributions/192.231.177.21
 * nl:Special:Contributions/192.231.177.21


 * pt:Special:Contributions/64.134.67.57

--Hu12 (talk) 17:06, 24 December 2011 (UTC)

Content farm style SEO spam

 * Spam pages
 * Money Markets FDIC Insured - How Are Brokerage Money Market Accounts Insured or Protected
 * Jumbo Savings Rates - What Is a Jumbo CD?
 * Solar Energy - How to Convert Solar Energy Into Electricity
 * Solar Energy - How to Start a Solar Energy Business (Cost Effectively)
 * Solar Energy - How to Calculate Solar Energy Needs
 * Solar Power - How to Build a Solar-Powered Toy Car
 * Money Markets FDIC Insured - How Are Brokerage Money Market Accounts Insured or Protected
 * Jumbo Savings Rates - What Is a Jumbo CD?
 * Solar Energy - How to Convert Solar Energy Into Electricity
 * Solar Energy - How to Start a Solar Energy Business (Cost Effectively)
 * Solar Energy - How to Calculate Solar Energy Needs
 * Solar Power - How to Build a Solar-Powered Toy Car


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers


 * See also
 * SPI quick request

MER-C 10:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Australian SEO userpage spam

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers


 * See also
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Blockeddrainswebsitez
 * SPI quick request (1)
 * SPI quick request (2)

MER-C 07:27, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * MER-C 04:07, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Recycled. MER-C 11:18, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

anandmahal.in



 * Spammers


 * See also
 * SPI quick request

Surprisingly nothing in the linkwatcher database, but this is worthy of a permanent record. MER-C 12:30, 26 December 2011 (UTC)

Appextech spam on Wikipedia



 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 07:03, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Not sure about Booknotes in external links
I 'm not sure about this being really spam-related as such, but I have noticed that user

is, more or less on a full time basis, adding external links in various articles to Booknotes.org, a website mainly dedicated to interviews about books:

A few days ago I removed 30 or so of these links per wp:ELNO item #13, the and the, and notified KConWiki. This resulted in a mass revert of my undos by user KConWiki, and a discussion on my talk page (User talk:DVdm) about my removal being inappropriate, given the quality of the external links. The discussion was started by user and joined by users  and. A bit later user added a comment after I had noticed that he had  the  of my first  and after I asked him for  As can be seen on my talk page, my rationale is that, according to guideline at wp:ELNO, the website booknotes.org, being not directly related to the subjects of the articles in question, should not be listed as an external link, but rather, being of high quality, should be used as a reference/source for some points to be integrated in the body of the article. That is how I (and JohnBlackburne) seem to interpret the guideline. I kind of see their point, but nevertheless this point seems to be so directly in violation with item #13 of wp:ELNO, that I'm really wondering whether I am totally off the mark here, in which case I would like to avoid making the same mistake in the future. So could someone uninvolved please have a look at this? TIA. DVdm (talk) 12:22, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

User KConWiki on their talk page. - DVdm (talk) 12:32, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This is not spam because KConWiki is a good faith Wikipedian. In the long run, you are correct about the conversion of said external links to references. However, I believe temporarily adding useful future references to the external link section when one is too lazy to expand the article is acceptable (when it is not spam). That said, KConWiki should have asked before the systematic addition. MER-C 13:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, that is more or less what I had in mind, and indeed I think that KConWiki is acting in good faith. That's why I doubted so much about coming here. I first thought about going to wp:WikiProject External links, but there's not much life these days. As I said on my talk page, it's no big deal, but can I assume that my interpretation of item 13 of wp:ELNO is indeed correct? - DVdm (talk) 13:58, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Hello, and Season's Greetings to all - I would like to continue doing what I have been doing, and I think the links add very good, unique resources to the pages on which I have been placing them. (Also, I ought to mention that there are plenty of pages that had Booknotes links present before I even started on this.) However, I do not want this to be controversial or cause upsettedness. (BTW - I highly recommend to any interested parties to watch one or more of the interviews in question to get an idea of their content.) If there is a reason for me not to continue with the systematic (though manual) addition of these links to appropriate author (and sometimes subject) pages, please let's discuss. I have several hundred yet to go - For instance, I am planning on editing the page for Max Frankel to include this interview link: http://www.booknotes.org/Watch/121919-1/Max+Frankel.aspx . Thanks for the comments, and again, Happy Holidays. KConWiki (talk) 15:42, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I've hashed out some of this with DVdm on his discussion page, and so this may be somewhat repetitive, but it seems like the key disagreement here is over the interpretation of item 13 of WP:ELNO:


 * Sites that are only indirectly related to the article's subject: the link should be directly related to the subject of the article. A general site that has information about a variety of subjects should usually not be linked to from an article on a more specific subject. Similarly, a website on a specific subject should usually not be linked from an article about a general subject. If a section of a general website is devoted to the subject of the article, and meets the other criteria for linking, then that part of the site could be deep linked.


 * (Emphasis mine.) Booknotes.org has "information about a variety of subjects" in that it hosts hour-long, in-depth interviews with authors, as broadcast on the U.S. television network C-SPAN. Now, Booknotes has 801 pages that are each a "section ... devoted to the subject of the article" and so it follows that such pages "could be deep linked".


 * Considering these interviews are such a unique resource, as they are typically interviews with the subject of the Wikipedia article or a subject matter expert (indeed, the author of a relevant book) I do not understand why DVdm is so eager to banish them from Wikipedia. By this logic, IMDb might be considered inappropriate because it contains information about a very large number of actors, actresses, movies, television shows and even video games. (Even treating these clearly on-topic additions by a long-time editor as "spam" seems contrary to the spirit of AGF.)


 * I do agree with DVdm's desire that the interviews be used as proper references to add more material in the article. But Wikipedia is a work in progress, we shouldn't let perfect be the enemy of the good and, frankly, it is more likely that future editors will spend time with these interviews if they are found in ELs now. (Note of disclosure: As I've said here and elsewhere, I work as an outside consultant to C-SPAN.) Merry Christmas, WWB Too (talk) 17:00, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * My concern on the one of these links I reverted at Albert Einstein, but it extends to all others, is primarily #13 of WP:ELNO: a book on a topic might be a good EL, but someone talking about the book (and from the one transcript I read the conversation was at least as much about the author and the book writing process as the topic) much less so. They are hardly a unique resource, as required by the first of WP:ELNO.
 * The other problem is these are not only videos but Flash videos with no HTML5 fallback, as is widely seen on YouTube, Vimeo, etc.. They are of no use to a wide variety of readers, and this must be made clear from the link, per WP:EL. This can be fixed (and needs to be if the links are kept) but still my instinct is a link to someone talking about the book they wrote about the topic is a very poor external link.-- JohnBlackburne wordsdeeds 17:34, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * I share your general preference to HTML5 over Flash, but the Rich media guideline certainly doesn't forbid it (making no such recommendations at present), and states "It is always preferred to link to a page rendered in normal HTML that contains embedded links to the rich media", which KConWiki's links did. That said, I would support a note that the videos are in Flash format, not to mention a preference for HTML5 where available.


 * However, I don't share your view that a link to an expert interview "a very poor external link". In most cases, I believe the interview will be of more immediate use to a reader: a link related to the book will not be the text itself, but the video is free of charge, highly relevant (some questions indeed focus on the author or writing process, but most are about the subject at hand), and ready to go. Furthermore, the interviews all feature, by definition, published experts discussing the specific topic. If this is a "very poor" resource, I'm at a loss to imagine as to what a very good one would be. Cheers, WWB Too (talk) 20:43, 25 December 2011 (UTC)


 * If indeed some interview on some website has something of immediate use to the reader, then I think (and so does the el-guideline) that it is a much better idea to mention that something in the text and use the interview as a source. I also think that that is precisly a job to be done by the very person who feels that the interview should be somehow mentioned in the article in the first place. A lot of work ahead, KConWiki, so please, consider writing content and backing it by the sources. It's not that hard -- unless you are planning to add thousands of them, that is ;-) Happy Hollies! - DVdm (talk) 21:17, 25 December 2011 (UTC)
 * We're talking about in-depth discussions focused on the topic of the article....for example a hourlong discussion on a major book on James Madison by the leading specialist who wrote the book; the discussion is all about Madison and how historians treat his life. Likewise erased was an hour on American Exceptionalism with a leading scholar (Lipset) on that topic. These are NOT links to CSPAN or Booknotes generic websites, but rather are links to the specific interview. DVdm erased the links without discussion and without even listening to the actual Booknote interview, since he relied on a (mis)reading of the rules. The rules certainly do NOT say that the external links must be discussed in the article. In my opinion these these links exactly fulfill the proper role of external links. Rjensen (talk) 23:33, 25 December 2011 (UTC)

We know Rjensen's and WWB Too's opinions from what they said on my talk page. I came here to get opinions from some uninvolved editors, because I wanted to know whether I did something wrong, "in which case I would like to avoid making the same mistake in the future." According to Rjensen and WWB Too I clearly did something wrong. According to MER-C and JohnBlackburne, who was uninvolved in the discussion when he, it looks like I did nothing wrong. Any other takers? - DVdm (talk) 10:47, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * In my opinion the linking is excessive. We do not need to link to the entirety of booknotes from Wikipedia. These interviews should be gone over on a case-by-case basis to see how many add relevant, detailed content to the articles in a way that we can not do onwiki. Ones that only add trivial information or information that we could write into the articles (such as pure facts and statistics) should be removed or cited appropriately. What constitutes a good interview is a subjective matter and for this reason (among others) we should avoid robotically linking to interviews.


 * Adding these links en masse like this was a very bad idea and I oppose any future en masse addition of them. Interviews of this nature need to be added on a case-by-case basis with respect to the individual articles and interviews.  Them From  Space  22:03, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * By the way, the external links noticeboard would have been a better place to hold this discussion, since noone is accusing anyone else of spamming.  Them From  Space  22:07, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, that was the place where I should have gone. I have pointing overhere. Nice to know for the future. Thanks a lot. - DVdm (talk) 22:25, 26 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Let me just mention about this: ...we should avoid robotically linking to interviews. - Not a single one of these links was created robotically - They have all been done manually. As for this: These interviews should be gone over on a case-by-case basis to see how many add relevant, detailed content to the articles in a way that we can not do onwiki. - If anyone can identify examples of these links that don't add relevant, detailed content in a way that cannot be done onwiki, then let's discuss the removal of some of those links. KConWiki (talk) 23:15, 26 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't mean to suggest that you were using a bot to place the links: bad word choice on my part. I just meant that you shouldn't assume all interviews there are appropriate as external links here.  Them From  Space  16:09, 27 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It looks like user KConWiki is continuing to "robotically" add these external links en masse and all over the place, as if nothing was said here. Does this mean that the text of wp:ELNO should be modified to accomodate for Booknotes.org and explicitly list it as a general exception to the guideline? - DVdm (talk) 20:24, 27 December 2011 (UTC)
 * KConWiki is doing fine--a real service to Wiki users. He always follows the EP:ELNO guideline which says: "acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as ...amount of detail." "the link should be directly related to the subject of the article." Rjensen (talk) 20:36, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

I saw the note at WP:ELN.

DVdm, you seem to be having trouble figuring out what constitutes a "related" link. So here are some principles you'll want to keep in mind:


 * An ==External link== is not required to be controlled by the subject of the article.
 * It is not required to be on a website that contains no information about anything except the subject of the article. For example, if the article is about a professor, you can link to the university webpage about that professor, even though the university website has hundreds or thousands of other pages that are not about that professor.  (What ELNO #13 prohibits is linking to just plain www.university.edu, and making the reader wonder whether that website has any information about the professor).
 * It is not required to be about the entirety of the article. For example, Cancer can have an external link that is only about cancer epidemiology, without any information about symptoms, treatments, causes, patholophysiology, or costs.  Being focused on one part of the subject is still "directly releated" to (that part of) the subject.
 * Interviews are called out in WP:ELYES #3 as an ideal kind of external link. (You can still complain about them being high-bandwidth rich media/only accessible to people with good internet connections; that's why "interview transcripts" are specifically named as the best option.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2011 (UTC)


 * WhatamIdoing, it is indeed like you say, I have trouble figuring out what constitutes a "related" link. That is why I came here, although wp:ELN should have been a better choice. Thanks for your input. It is very useful indeed. Cheers - DVdm (talk) 09:23, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks to all for your comments, and also for the individual ways in which you make Wikipedia a great resource (and I genuinely mean that). A few things about this:


 * Do we want to move this whole discussion from here over to the External Links message board?
 * I am planning on completing the work of creating links to the 150-200 or so authors (and some topics) that I have left, probably over the next week or so. I am doing this because I really believe (as I have said elsewhere) that once all is said and done, that 90+% of them will stand the test of time and scrutiny. I wanted to do this in a methodical manner, and I have some time off work during the holidays to work on this. Again - If anyone has an example of a link that they think should not be on a certain page, then let's discuss that link and page. I am trying to be Bold, but not stubborn.
 * Lest the idea continue that I am adding links without any consideration of the subject pages in question, let me give an example of some that I did not think an appropriate add: Morton Kondracke wrote a book about his wife having Parkinson's Disease. The Kondracke article got the Booknotes link, the Parkinson's article did not. Also, Murray Sperber wrote a book critical of College athletics. The Sperber article got the link, but the College athletics article did not. (However - for the article on the First Transcontinental Railroad I did think it was appropriate to link to the interview for David Howard Bain's book "Empire Express: Building the First Transcontinental Railroad".)
 * The question of interview transcripts has come up - Let me just mention that each of these pages linked to has a link titled "Full Page/Print" at the bottom left of the brownish text box, that gives you a pop-up with the whole transcript in easy-to-read form. (I will concede that they could have made those links a bit more obvious in the design of the site.)
 * One thing that I have not commented on is the idea that if we want to have a certain page linked from a Wiki article, that the best thing is always to find something from the link (in this case, from the interview) that fits well as a citable fact in the article, use that link as the source for the citation, and then that's it, no need for a separate shout-out in the external link section. Perhaps this is true in many cases. But the problem with that here is that it hides the majority of the interview. In other words (to use a silly example) if I have a one-hour serious interview with someone who is an expert on Woodrow Wilson, and they mention that Woodrow Wilson liked green neckties better than red neckties (which of course I have no idea about...) and I add the necktie fact to the appropriate part of the Wilson article and cite the interview, then there's like 55 minutes of other serious and impossible-to-summarize material about Woodrow Wilson that gets kind of stashed under the carpet. By having the links there as easy-to-see links, I like to think that they facilitate the serendipity of learning for persons who are interested in finding out more about Wilson. (For people who are just looking for a specific Wilson fact, they would probably not click the link in the first place.)
 * UPDATE: Let me share an actual example of this that I just came across - In this version of the page for historian Gordon Wood, his Booknotes interview is used as the citation for the fact that some of his fellow historians gave him a hard time about his being praised by Newt Gingrich. That's fine that the fact is included and that the interview is cited, but there is so much more to the interview beyond that. KConWiki (talk) 20:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)
 * As I have mentioned on my own talk page, just to put this out there: I do not now, nor have I in the past, nor do I expect to in the future, take any $$$ or any other compensation from C-SPAN or any related entity for doing this; My interest in Booknotes and C-SPAN, which began in the early 1990s has a commonality with my interest in Wikipedia, which began in the early 2000s - Namely, both are fantastic vehicles for the free exchange of ideas and information in a non-sound-bite manner, for any parties (expert or amateur) that are interested in taking the time to absorb those ideas or pieces of information. IMHO, C-SPAN and Wikipedia go together like peanut butter and jelly.
 * So, I really do appreciate the discussion and expression of concerns, but I am also respectfully planning to continue and complete the last of these links. Thanks, and happy holidays. KConWiki (talk) 03:28, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

GayRomeo Spam / Self Promotion
Really wonder why this page is still not removed from Wikipedia: GayRomeo

The page was already subject for deletion on March 28, 2007 but for then Wikipedia decided to keep it. When you visit the page the first thing it shows up is "This article may be written like an advertisement", which it clearly is. Looks like pure self promotion (free advertisement) and written by the owners, filled with a bunch of backlinks to its website.

Ask yourself the question.... Does this REALLY add any value to the Wikipedia Encyclopedia??? Is (or was) GayRomeo really that important for the whole world to know?

--Wikidigger99 (talk) 09:54, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

Spam on Red dog-related articles
Calistemon (talk) 23:25, 28 December 2011 (UTC)




 * Added tracking for future reference. MER-C 03:09, 29 December 2011 (UTC)