Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Nov 1

Continuous domain spamming for more than a year


Darjeelingteaxpress.com has been continuously spamming Darjeeling tea page for more than one year starting from Nov. 2010. I checked the history and found more than 25 times continuous spamming result on the Darjeeling tea page inspite of being deleted by editors. The Darjeeling tea discussion page has indirectly addressed this spamming issue, but the spam site has paid no heed. A recent spam was again done on Oct. 29, 2011. History of their domain spamming can be seen on the following sections: user_talk:Shal83, Special:Contributions/Darjeelingteaxpress , Special:Contributions/Shal83 , Special:Contributions/14.98.173.105 Such spam sites should be banned from Wikipedia Subashishs (talk) 18:57, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blatant mallards. Any reason not to just blacklist Darjeelingteaxpress.com and remove the motivation? LeadSongDog come howl!  03:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no motivation. The domain has been spamming continuously from Nov. 2010. I love tea and refer wikipedia for my work as well. I hadn't registered before (because I never thought it necessary and needed it) and for this purpose alone I had to register. I was the one with the domain ip 180.215.115.217 and 180.215.233.228 who had deleted the spam links on Darjeeling tea page before I filed this, you can view the history page. I had even written on the Discussion page even before deleting the links and before reporting here with the ip 180.215.115.217 on Oct. 24 (by the way my nick name is Subashish, don't confuse my nick name with my real name which is Vivek Tuladar). I thought the domain wouldn't spam again after seeing the discussion page, but it again did on Oct. 29. Wikipedia has already blocked Special:Contributions/Shal83. Unless blocked, it can continue spamming. The proof is in front of our eyes. I just want a spam free page. Wikipedia has helped me a lot. Thank you. Subashishs (talk) 15:33, 30 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Spam pages


 * Additional sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 06:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Flowers for Algernon spam
I am new to wikipedia, and have insuficient knowledge to work out who completed this act of spam. The following sentence appears on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flowers_for_algernon, " By 2020, it had been translated into 27 languages, published in 90 countries and sold more than 5 gazillion copies. " This is most likely someone who has changed the words (2020 and gazilion) the 27 languages seems plausible, however. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.61.195.168 (talk) 06:18, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ - You must be looking at a cached version of the page: This vandalism (added 25 October 2011) was removed by Dalford77 and GDallimore on 26 October 2011. Try refreshing your browser's cache. Mark Hurd (talk) 09:38, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

biblegateway.com
When scouring wikipedia for spammers I have come across this link many times. In fact it is present at least 11,295 times on en.wp alone. COIbot doesn't even try to record this since it will overload... The link is owned by a publisher, a commercial company. There are many sites containing text from the bible and articles about these texts. I don't know why this link should be in wikipedia so many times. In due course the contents of the bible should be in wikisource. EdBever (talk) 13:10, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

aronline.co.uk
Anyone have time to look at this? I've removed some recent spamming by Kadams1970, but it's used a great deal still. --Ronz (talk) 00:11, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

culturebase.net



 * de:Special:Contributions/Haus_der_Kulturen_der_Welt
 * fr:Special:Contributions/Haus_der_Kulturen_der_Welt
 * es:Special:Contributions/Haus der Kulturen der Welt
 * Special:Contributions/Haus_der_Kulturen_der_Welt
 * Special:Contributions/Steinathkw


 * Accounts

User did a name change, yet somehow reverted back to old account and continued the same pattern of COI spamming.--Hu12 (talk) 16:12, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

tollywoodandhra.in
Google Analytics UA-25569653, UA-26119467




 * Spammers

MER-C 07:05, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Rebekahpedia and industry blogs
Recent new editor, almost (but not quite) every edit is adding an EL to a specialised industrial blog, "Parts washer blog" etc. User page admits that their day job is building just such sites. May be GF, but one to watch. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:43, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

wikiuncle
Probable WP:REFSPAM. At the least, the website in question is an unreliable source and should not normally be used as a reference. --Cyber cobra (talk) 00:34, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Also . MER-C 06:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Clash Music

 * See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Mar_4


 * Main article
 * Clash (magazine)


 * links:


 * users:
 * Indef blocked
 * Has been blocked
 * now at uw-spam4im.
 * Has been blocked
 * now at uw-spam4im.
 * now at uw-spam4im.
 * now at uw-spam4im.

Long term spamming (since 2008). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:54, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Lake Keowee
Check out external links -- mucho spam.--Tomwsulcer (talk) 21:24, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

cartiershop.org and cartier4love.net



 * Spammers

Spamming to user/user talk pages and a random article. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 02:59, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

mangauk.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 11:03, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Carhirehq
Not reported by me, seems like a lost addition. I gave it an own section now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

360cities.net


Quite a bit of en. and crosswiki spamming evident at WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/360cities.net, however more recently this example. 360cities.net itself, states; Please feel free to add links to 360Cities on Wikipedia. . Additionaly it appears 360cities.net pushes their "...get 100% of the ad revenue" and "Offering Your Panoramas for Print Sales and Licensing" with a big 'ole "BUY / LICENSE" button. Currently there are 305 of these links residing on wikipedia. question is should they?--Hu12 (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * After thinking about this for a while, I'd say take this to Meta and block. I am unhappy with my conclusion, because the 360° images on that site are interesting and in many cases serve as nice enhancements to articles. On the other hand, when a site realizes that its pages are relevant links and decides to capitalized on that, to the point of canvassing visitors to spam Wikipedia for the explicit purpose of generating revenue, that goes over the line. The articles that contain these links can function just as well without them, and use Commons photos instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:00, 10 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I've been seeing a lot of this lately. Blacklist it. MER-C 02:49, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

A diagnosis: well-disguised corporate spam
This template was created in December of 2009 by an account that was a sock puppet of User:Kim Kardassian who was blocked 4 weeks after joining WP and had been using multiple sock puppet accounts. I strongly suspect that this template was created for hire for the modern company that has the name National Lampoon, Incorporated. The heading for the template links only to the modern company, which was created in 2002, and that company did not exist in 1978 and had nothing whatsoever to do with the classic movie Animal House from 1978, which is included in the template with a few other original efforts from that period, apparently to give the other content a better supposed pedigree. If you look at National Lampoon (magazine) you will see that there is very little included from the original company.

If the template is supposed to be about the modern company as its title link suggests, then it should not include any work older than 2002, but... the modern company is not notable enough to need a template anyway! If the template is supposed to be about the original National Lampoon, then the post-1998 listings needs to be removed. If the template is supposed to contain everything that has the name "National Lampoon" in it, then why is it only about films, TV films and videos? How come no books or albums etc? Because... the template appears as if it was written for the modern company and essentially by the modern company. In other words I believe the template is cleverly disguised spam.

A couple years ago I had a run-in with an editor who had tacked everything about the recent company onto the Nat. Lamp. magazine article. I split the new stuff off into the current article on the modern company, leaving the original article about the magazine and its spin-offs. When I asked the editor who had added on the stuff about the modern company directly about COI he did not reply but mysteriously disappeared. It seems very likely to me that the company is still trying to find ways to combine their stuff with the far superior older Lampoon stuff in misleading ways, and I believe this template is one of the results of those efforts.

Hoping to get some other input on this, Invertzoo (talk) 22:06, 10 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I think this would probably fit better over at Templates for discussion rather than here. Would deleting the template present any problems in articles? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:12, 11 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I am talking with one editor who would like to keep the template and expand it, hopefully making it neutral in terms of its slant. It looks as thought we will try to do that and see if we can make it work. I wanted to alert you guys that spam links are not the only way that corporations insert their spam into Wikipedia. If anyone else has anything helpful to say about this whole thing, I would be very happy to hear from them. Thanks, Invertzoo (talk) 23:59, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

Adsense pub-3845661189639054

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spamemd


 * Spammers

MER-C 09:28, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

sohbetgibi.net



 * Spammers

MER-C 07:20, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Glad Technologies spam on Wikipedia



 * Sites spammed


 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:15, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

dolcevitavillas.com
Google Analytics UA-9597386


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:18, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

kusadasi.tv



 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:25, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

fitnessfreak24.com
Adsense pub-0658047188086615 Google Analytics UA-26897990




 * Spammers

MER-C 10:30, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

Prototek manufacturing
Spams the external links sections of various articles relating to metalworking: sheet metal, laser cutting, fabrication (metal), etc with links to the following domains:

Known users:
I'm getting pretty tired of reverting it. Kolbasz (talk) 15:02, 17 November 2011 (UTC)

eksur.com
Adsense pub-1192818758769658 Google Analytics UA-15486958




 * Related domains


 * Spammers

MER-C 09:07, 18 November 2011 (UTC)

dowprinting.com

 * link


 * accounts

Repeated addition of link despite warnings. Multiple SPA accounts (likely sockpuppetry). Links are a commercial advert. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 14:23, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

West Virginia University spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

West Virginia University West Virginia University West Virginia University --Hu12 (talk) 17:22, 21 November 2011 (UTC)

degreesfinder.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

HYBRID SECURITY SPAM

 * Article spam"
 * Article spam"
 * Article spam"


 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Ombudsman Service Limited

 * Article spam"
 * Article spam"


 * Ombudsman Services


 * Accounts

(Marketer Communications at The Ombudsman Service Limited) (16:20, 23 November 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Rachel Chorley ‎ (new account) ) --Hu12 (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Special:Log/Ombudsman_Services
 * 11:03, 16 December 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Elizabeth Chorley
 * 16:20, 23 November 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) created new account User:Rachel Chorley
 *  15:46, 14 November 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) new user account ‎
 *  15:46, 14 November 2011 Ombudsman Services (talk | contribs | block) new user account ‎

Continued Using Wikipedia for spam or advertising purposes--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

video-hitt.blogspot.com



 * Accounts

BL.d--Hu12 (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

adsensetraininginurdu.blogspot.com

 * link


 * accounts

IP socks repeatedly spamming link to SEO training, despite multiple warnings. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:50, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Royal College of Physicians of Ireland Archive Spamming

 * Articles
 * Articles
 * Articles


 * Accounts

(Royal College of Physicians of Ireland) --Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 23 November 2011 (UTC)

Adsense pub-9882692883132522
Google Analytics UA-17469157




 * Spammers

MER-C 06:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

india.com refspamming



 * Related domains


 * Spammers

There might be more here, but I don't have time to look into it. MER-C 10:34, 17 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Revertlisted. MER-C 09:44, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Adsense pub-9118466005375688
Google Analytics UA-23622030




 * 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
 * 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 11:46, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Blue_Morpho_Ayahuasca_center <-- spam?
This page: Blue_Morpho_Ayahuasca_center Seems to be a spam/advertising page for their center. Can you do something about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.160.15.196 (talk) 11:34, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

Interesting preprint about sweatshop spam
"Battling the Internet Water Army: Detection of Hidden Paid Posters" on social media sites. Doesn't mention Wikipedia directly, but the observations seem to match my experience with hit and run Chinese spammers. MER-C 12:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

indiavision.com refspam

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

Haven't cleaned this up, but these users quack quite loudly as sockpuppets. MER-C 12:46, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

shugalmela.com
Google Analytics UA-26401673




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


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


 * Citation spammer, see
 * Citation spammer, see



MER-C 06:38, 27 November 2011 (UTC)

Promotional book spam
An editor, and different IPs, keep adding a mention of a very un-notable book to the Vril article. The author of the book created an article about the book, The Vril Codex (Novel), which was speedy deleted by an admin, after it had been at AfD for a few hours. Here is the book's author and article creator:

Here are some of the IPs, which Geolocate to two different continents, so they appear to be meatpuppets, because of the timing and addition of the same material:

I'm already at 3 reverts at Vril, and would appreciate someone else's help there, even though it's technically spam/vandalism at this point which I'm reverting. If you would like to preview the book we're talking about, The Vril Codex, you can see it at Google Books:. Reading a page or two may give you the idea that it is very unlikely to ever become notable. First Light (talk) 17:45, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * The article cited will not be edited by me in any shape or form in future. In terms of anything being done by anyone else i can only assume it was after i was contacted by a reader who wished to make an article to whom i replied and made aware of the recent deletions.  i shall inform that it best not to proceed. i do not know the second editor you cite.  in terms of my works literary merit - i dont think you are qualified to make a judgement from a scan of the first few pages.  my edits were purely because it is the first novel to tackle the subject directly (vril/nazi's).incidently vril codex is not self published (however, self published books should be seen as sub standard).  in fact your vril article linked to a self published book for many days which also has been allowed a wikipedia page.  rgrds  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.23.144 (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for removing that mention of the book from the Vril article. I had also removed the mention of that other book earlier, and had nominated it for deletion also. See: The Lost Souls of Bell Valley (book). First Light (talk) 19:16, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

Thanks. I didnt delete the bell valley book for any other reason that it seemed a double standard. it only makes mention of Bulwer Lyttons classic novel-vril is central to the work in mine. on reading back what i have written above it appears i forgot to include "NOT" as in "self published books should NOT be seen as sub standard" indeed, in the wikipedia article for self publishing it shows that that is no reason to judge a literary work. I trust this is an end to the matter. in the unlikely (as you see it) event that my literary work merits an independant mention on wikipedia in future i trust it will not be removed or judged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.111.23.144 (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * In order to be included, it would have to meet Wikipedia's guidelines on Notability. That may happen someday, but it isn't close right now. Also, it seems yet another brand new editor is adding the information to the article. How strange. First Light (talk) 20:08, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I believe the material in question was added to the article at 15:03, about three minutes after the following account was created:

&mdash; UncleBubba ( T @ C ) 22:56, 25 November 2011 (UTC)


 * And VeroR73 added back that material exactly two minutes after 88.111.23.144 made their comment just above ours.... hmmmm.... And then yet another IP removed that material from the Vril article five minutes after that. My head is spinning. First Light (talk) 23:03, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Related URL
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 00:11, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Adsense pub-9926124590943879

 * Sites spammed
 * redirects to
 * redirects to
 * redirects to
 * redirects to
 * redirects to




 * Related domains


 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see vi:Special:Contributions/123.19.0.77



$ whois missworldphotos.com Registrant: indomaco KP 5 phuong 1 Dong Ha, Quang Tri N/A Vietnam

There are 20 pages of this to get through on Google, so this isn't the entire picture. MER-C 10:40, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 00:19, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

Hephaestus books
Hephaestus publishes books that are compilations of Wikipedia articles. I guess that's legal. However, if one searches WP for "Hephaestus books", many articles pop up where these books are either listed as "further reading" or, even worse, as sources (the snake biting its own tail...) I cannot see this as anything else but spam. I get about 163 hits, which is a bit much to clean up by hand by me alone. Suggestions/help welcome. --Guillaume233 (talk) 13:15, 27 November 2011 (UTC)