Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Oct 1

cummingsstudyguides.net


I just encountered this page on the page of Tennessee Williams, but it also occurs on 58 other pages as well. I have not yet figured out who is doing it, but it is possible that multiple users are. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 16:27, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You might be on to something: I randomly sampled four articles and found that three links to this site were inserted by the following IPs:
 * ...back in 2006. This predates the linkwatcher data, unfortunately. (Use the "revision history search" in the page history, enter the link and select "force searching for wikitext"). MER-C 09:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find unnerving is that it took five years to figure out that something was up, here. They were probably all inserted years ago, I would assume. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * ...back in 2006. This predates the linkwatcher data, unfortunately. (Use the "revision history search" in the page history, enter the link and select "force searching for wikitext"). MER-C 09:11, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find unnerving is that it took five years to figure out that something was up, here. They were probably all inserted years ago, I would assume. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)
 * What I find unnerving is that it took five years to figure out that something was up, here. They were probably all inserted years ago, I would assume. Kevin Rutherford (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2011 (UTC)

sourgrapeswinery.com




Possible refspamming. Bluebonnet460 (talk) 04:40, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I have examined the references added by these users and either removed or replaced them. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Academy of Achievement
As far as I'm concerned, the edits by, which consist almost exclusively of the addition of quotes from interviews found at the "academy" website, are link spam. Your input is appreciated. Drmies (talk) 16:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

mountainprofessor.com

 * link


 * accounts

Link has been added into multiple articles by a single-purpose account, whose only edits since being created have been to post links to the url. The site offers nothing not already better sourced within the article - the site appears to have no established notability, authority, or accreditation of the content provided on it. The account was originally active for two days in June 2011, then stopped editing until today when they began to re-add the url to articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:47, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Now indef-blocked as a spam-only account. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:09, 6 October 2011 (UTC)
 * additional accounts
 * Additional account starting to add link following block of prior account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Additional account starting to add link following block of prior account. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:23, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

eblogz.net
Google Analytics UA-22974840, UA-24440608


 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53
 * Spammed on Finnish Wikipedia, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.53


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.76.52
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see fi:Special:Contributions/58.69.76.52


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see wikt:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.68
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see wikt:Special:Contributions/58.69.57.68


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/124.106.190.14
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see de:Special:Contributions/124.106.190.14


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see simple:Special:Contributions/124.106.188.241


 * Spammed on French Wikipedia, see fr:Special:Contributions/124.106.185.184
 * Spammed on French Wikipedia, see fr:Special:Contributions/124.106.185.184
 * Spammed on French Wikipedia, see fr:Special:Contributions/124.106.185.184
 * Spammed on French Wikipedia, see fr:Special:Contributions/124.106.185.184

Subtle, sneaky spamming -- link descriptions consist solely of whitespace. I'm surprised this works. MER-C 08:34, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

cdbaby.com needs cleanup again
It's not clear how much cleanup was done of cdbaby.com links last time, but it definitely needs it now. --Ronz (talk) 17:02, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh, man... What a load of spam.
 * This needs to be blacklisted or at the very least placed on XLinkBot.
 * I think User:Δ has a tool to clean those up. I'll ask. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * As soon as its blacklisted Ill clean it out, should be fairly easy. ΔT The only constant 18:13, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Why should this be blacklisted? I've glanced at several of the links and many of them appear to be legitimate links and not spam.  I readily admit that many of the links are unwelcome and could be classified as spam but I don't want us to throw the baby out with the bathwater. ElKevbo (talk) 18:20, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Which links aren't spam? As far as I can tell, except for the article cdbaby, all the links in main article space point to a "buy it here" page for a particular artist's songs. They don't serve as a reference by any means.


 * Question for User:Δ: Does your tool preserve the link descriptions, just removing the URL? It would be useful to keep those, because some articles have lists that rely on those URL descriptions. Instances that exist inside tags are probably safe for removing the entire citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Its just about as flexible as I need it to be. Don't worry about exactly how it functions just trust me that its very effective. ΔT The only constant 20:19, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I wouldn't dream of questioning its effectiveness, just curious about how it works.
 * I'll wait for the COIbot report and either blacklist it or add it to XLinkBot depending on how the report looks. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 11 October 2011 (UTC)


 * I'll go through the first 50 or so links and make a list here. Can you give me a few hours to work on it? It would be unseemly to blacklist a website while there is ongoing discussion. ElKevbo (talk) 21:28, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

As shown in the table below, there are 49 articles in the first 100 pages linking to cdbaby.com. Two of them are duplicates, leaving us with a sample of 47. A quick look through these articles shows that only 10 of them - 22% - are obvious problems that should be immediately removed. The vast majority of these links - 37 of 47 (79%) articles - are references. In many cases may not be the best reference available but at an initial glance they are good-faith, legitimate references.

I don't know what the threshold is or should be for a website to blacklisted. But I'm pretty sure that it's higher than 1/5 links in article space being problematic.

ElKevbo (talk) 22:40, 11 October 2011 (UTC)

Re Brian Patneaude: a good editor in March 2009, but the reference does not in any way verify the text (it points to the current cdbaby main page, while the text refers to its state in March 2009). A link in a reference can still be unhelpful or unduly promotional (although that was not the intention in this case). Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 11 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Nice to have some other eyes on this. Thanks everyone!
 * Yes, the "reference" links to the main page are inappropriate. Perhaps the verifying information is still available elsewhere on their site?
 * From what I see, it's a website that might be a useful reference when no others are available, but it has definitely been abused, especially in past copyvio cases. --Ronz (talk) 01:57, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, it's definitely ripe for abuse and misuse. I think it would be a good idea to give it to XLinkBot so we can all watch it.  I just think that outright banning it is going too far. ElKevbo (talk) 02:28, 12 October 2011 (UTC)


 * As far as I can tell from that list above, all the ones marked "keep" are refspam. They don't belong, they don't enhance the project, they don't meet WP:EL. They are links to avoid. All those links are "buy it here" pages. There is no valid purpose to having them.


 * Now, that doesn't mean they weren't added in good faith. Let's wait and see what the COIbot report says. I have filed a request to generate a report.


 * I agree that a pattern of good-faith additions does not warrant blacklisting, but it would warrant listing at XLinkBot. XLinkBot simply reverts attempts to add such links, but does not revert repeated attempts. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:06, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Just to note, this is already listed on the revertlist of XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

mcbub.com


I've seen a surge in anonymous users and registered users tying to get this url in a few different articles for the past few weeks. The website has no place on WP at all and it's been fairly manageable to remove the edits, but this one may be eligible for blacklisting. The two main articles that are being targeted with this link are Tablet personal computer and PC Card, but it has also made its way onto Mobile operating system.

The link has been added mainly by IP users. Here's some of them:


 * , added once — located in United States
 * , added several times, along with some other egregious spam — located in United States
 * , added three times over two days — located in Guangdong, China
 * , added multiple times over a two week period — Located in Scranton, Pennsylvania
 * , added twice in one day — Located in Guangdong, China
 * , added four times in one day — Located in Pasadena
 * , added once on one day only

Dawnseeker2000  02:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

71.56.240.67
71.56.240.67 is a spam-only account, adding links mostly to vsavagellc.com on music pages but also to a couple other sites. I've reverted everything so far.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Danhash (talk • contribs) Timestamp. MER-C 13:24, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

forsalebydevelopers.net
Moondyne (talk) 05:07, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * user account
 * Over 100 links, that all appeared to be added by the same user into about a dozen articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:44, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Richardsng is now blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. There are no links to forsalebydevelopers.com remaining. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Richardsng is now blocked indefinitely as a spam-only account. There are no links to forsalebydevelopers.com remaining. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

User:Elenapezzini
has created five new pages today in their userspace, all promoting the website YouGotThePower.org. None of them have even the faintest hope of making it into article space, and seem to serve only to promote the website within Wikipedia. Yunshui (talk) 10:31, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
 * All the relevant pages have now been deleted, and there has been no further account activity. This can probably be closed. Yunshui (talk) 13:32, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

wallawalla.com

 * links


 * accounts

A business directory site being re-added by IP. The single purpose account involved has been adding url's into multiple articles. All URLs added are tagged Powered by Sygnifi Networks. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 05:58, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

Shijiazhuang Kidney Disease Hospital still spamming Wikipedia

 * Previous incidents
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2011 Archive Jun 1


 * Spam pages
 * deleted 2 times
 * deleted 2 times
 * deleted 2 times



Sites previously blacklisted:
 * Sites spammed

New spam domains:


 * Spammers


 * See also
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.ckdsite.com
 * Requests for feedback/2011 October 9

MER-C 12:29, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Updated. MER-C 03:47, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Domainscot

 * links added


 * related sites


 * user account(s)

A user who has a self-confessed conflict-of-interest with the URLs being added has been acting with the single-purpose of adding URLs for the geodomain sites with which they are associated into multiple articles. This has been ongoing at least as far back as July 2006. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 23:13, 14 October 2011 (UTC)

uttarakhandstate.com
Google Analytics UA-24758804


 * redirects to uttarakhandstate.com
 * redirects to uttarakhandstate.com
 * redirects to uttarakhandstate.com


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


 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer inserted links masquerading as the official website
 * Spammer replaced existing links
 * Spammer inserted links masquerading as the official website



MER-C 07:54, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

bhojaldham.org

 * links


 * accounts

SPA accounts adding link to a site that fails WP:EL. Additions have been to multiple articles over the past week - all links to the URL were added by the users listed above. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:41, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * additional user accounts
 * Additional user began adding link after was blocked. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:18, 15 October 2011 (UTC)
 * new account Oct 17
 * Another newly created account arrives to add the same link to the same set of articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:34, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * more IPs starting to add the link
 * also spammed - related link
 * Following the block of the prior user account, three IPs have begun adding the link to the same sets of articles. Also began adding a blogspot front-end that directs users to the URL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - see --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * also spammed - related link
 * Following the block of the prior user account, three IPs have begun adding the link to the same sets of articles. Also began adding a blogspot front-end that directs users to the URL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - see --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * also spammed - related link
 * Following the block of the prior user account, three IPs have begun adding the link to the same sets of articles. Also began adding a blogspot front-end that directs users to the URL. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:00, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - see --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * - see --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:43, 17 October 2011 (UTC)

189.13.209.217 with xifle.com
He appears to just redirect to the intended site through his (xifle.com), perhaps in a hope to increase his viewcount or search rank. Either way, its not a good way of linking. I took the liberty of putting a final warning on his talk, but I am fairly new to this, so I apologise if I did this the wrong way. cheezychicken 20:01, 17 October 2011 (UTC)
 * links
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Added LinkSummary for easier reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:32, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

weathersafewa.com.au

 * Accounts

Sock farm with computer-generated account names spamming links to off-topic articles. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 07:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)



CU results reveal more socks. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 08:01, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

(ec - I had most of the second list as well) - Maybe blacklist would be good? I'll XLinkBot it anyways. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:04, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Links


 * Users


 * Pages
 * User:InternetMarketingDirect

More .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:08, 18 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Moar:
 * Spam pages
 * b:User:Printwynnum88
 * b:User:ThePrintingWell
 * b:User:InternetMarketingDirect
 * n:User:InternetMarketingDirect
 * b:User:Printwynnum88
 * b:User:ThePrintingWell
 * b:User:InternetMarketingDirect
 * n:User:InternetMarketingDirect
 * n:User:InternetMarketingDirect


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see b:Special:Contributions/ThePrintingWell
 * Spammed on Wikibooks, see b:Special:Contributions/Printwynnum88
 * InternetMarketingDirect is a cross-wiki spammer, see above.
 * Spammed on Wikibooks, see b:Special:Contributions/Printwynnum88
 * InternetMarketingDirect is a cross-wiki spammer, see above.
 * InternetMarketingDirect is a cross-wiki spammer, see above.


 * Blacklisting is the only option when confronted with a cross-wiki sock farm this size. MER-C 08:16, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Above domains all blacklisted on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:19, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

a minor issue but still...
It is a minor issue compare with others around here, but still...The same unregistered user is adding once or twice a month a link to the same website  sometimes just in the EL section, sometime in the text AND under EL together. It has been warned three times so far to no avail.--Dia^ (talk) 17:35, 18 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The static IP address and consistent editing history pretty much prove it's the same person. Now blocked for 6 months as a spam-only account. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 18 October 2011 (UTC)

Newswise
Not the worst case of spam, but User:Craigsjones appears to be connected to news site Newswise.com and he's spent his time here almost exclusively making additions with Newswise as a source. The account hasn't been in use for a while now but thought it might be worth being aware that the site spams Wikipedia and reviewing some of the additions if editors have time as they do appear to be rather "levered" into the articles in some cases. Thanks.--Shakehandsman (talk) 03:39, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

referencethailand.com
Adsense pub-7844278074408213




 * Spammers

MER-C 11:54, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blacklisting requested. MER-C 12:11, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

onlinefootage.tv



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



MER-C 10:05, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

Saudi Arabia Blatant Spam
sorry but i don not know how to create a formal spam report (as highlighted in green) but the saudi arabia page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saudi_Arabia#From_the_foundation_of_the_State_to_the_present has been obviously spammed 24.154.36.112 (talk) 00:56, 20 October 2011 (UTC) 24.154.36.112
 * I'm not seeing it. I guess it has already been reverted. MER-C 06:37, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Sneaky SEO spamming

 * Sites spammed


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


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


 * Spammed on Wikibooks, see b:Special:Contributions/180.190.173.42
 * Spammed on Wikibooks, see b:Special:Contributions/180.190.173.42


 * Spammed on Wikiquote, see q:Special:Contributions/180.190.166.187
 * Spammed on Wikiquote, see q:Special:Contributions/180.190.166.187

Spammers attempting to disguise links as plain text with CSS. MER-C 08:32, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

crusherplants.com

 * Blacklisted on English Wikibooks
 * Blacklisted on English Wikibooks


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

MER-C 09:20, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted globally by Beetstra. MER-C 09:46, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Can someone cleanup birlaa.com?


Looks like simple linkspam, perhaps copyright problems as well. Doesn't look suitable as an external link nor a ref. Anyone have time to look closer and cleanup? --Ronz (talk) 16:52, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

What do others think of netglimse.com?


To me it looks to ad-heavy to be an external link, nor reputable enough to be a reliable source. --Ronz (talk) 16:57, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

abercrombieandfitchstoreuk.com


Apparently some sort of Hong Kong merchandise knockoff company spamming the real Abercrombie & Fitch article. Their site looks almost real. --CliffC (talk) 13:04, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Check out the collapsed section at the top of this page -- 5000 domains like this blacklisted and counting. MER-C 13:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Aha, interesting. I clicked on one of the ones up there and got redirected to this April 28 lawsuit by A&F.  (Good luck with that.)  --CliffC (talk) 13:41, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Bump. MER-C 13:41, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

bollywood spam

 * links


 * users

Busy removing this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:04, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

patient-reminders.com



 * users

User explains his actions here, but unfortunately that is still not in line with the aims of Wikipedia.

All reverted, added to XLinkBot. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:19, 24 October 2011 (UTC)

lambielmuseum.org

 * links


 * accounts

Link to a museum being re-added to article about the island on which the museum is located. The museum is an art museum, and not an island history museum or any other that would provide insight about the island itself (ie: the subject is the island, not the museums or other attractions on it). Removed per WP:EL and WP:NOT, but was re-added. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:15, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Response by one of the editors being "reported" for spamming: (1) Shouldn't I have been notified of this report? (2) Shouldn't the original editor adding the link have been notified of this report?  (3) I can't speak for the other editor, but I know by putting the link (and readding the link) in the external links section I had no intention of intentionally spamming, let alone thinking I would be accused of it by another editor.  Lhb1239 (talk) 02:41, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 48.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed

"Wish you a pleasure shopping"
 * Similar domains

"low price strategy and hence.and we are looking forward"

"We offer payment interface is official"


 * Spammers

MER-C 06:14, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 49.0

 * Spammers

MER-C 09:46, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 51.0



 * Spammers

Not knockoff spam per se, but splogs of knockoff spam. MER-C 06:19, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 52.0



 * Spammers

MER-C 06:57, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 53.0



 * Spammers

MER-C 09:14, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 54.0



 * Spammers

MER-C 06:47, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 55.0

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers

MER-C 10:24, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 56.0



 * Spammers

MER-C 13:13, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

Generic Chinese knockoff spam 57.0



 * Spammers

MER-C 07:39, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Bump. MER-C 09:34, 25 October 2011 (UTC)

metforminsideeffects.biz
A number of recent links to this site have been added. In one case (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Phenformin&diff=prev&oldid=457437087) the link replaced an internal link to the Wikipedia metformin article. In other cases the link is only marginally related to the article in question. The site itself is a very advertisement-heavy site with no identification of the author (and thus violates RP:RS and probably WP:SPS in addition to WP:SPAM). --Yaush (talk) 02:39, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

secure.signup-way.com

 * Accounts

Spamming streaming of sports events in user talk and talk pages. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 20:49, 27 October 2011 (UTC)

howflyhiphop.com
Long-term addition of links to mixtapes on various rapper articles. All linked in the same manner to howflyhiphop.com. Started a sockpuppet investigation as well.  Falcon8765  (T ALK ) 00:24, 28 October 2011 (UTC)



howiw.com

 * Spam accounts
 * Related vandal accounts
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Related vandal accounts
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Related vandal accounts
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Related vandal accounts
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Related vandal accounts
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Until today there was just Crimenr1 and the dynamic ip's. Looks like he's noticed the problem given the two new accounts plus the repeated editing of the warnings for.
 * I recommended giving this to XLinkBot on 26 Oct. Given the continued problems, let's just blacklist it. --Ronz (talk) 02:02, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

activeplumbing.com.au

 * Accounts



Creating spam articles about plumbing service in Sydney. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 05:32, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Yo
I am not trying to advertise for my new movie Wake N Bake. I am simply trying to get the article on there so people know that it's being made. I apologize if it did seem spammy but the article has to be there. It's getting alot of hits. Feel free to contact me [email removed]

Do not give my email out to alot of people. I get enough spam as it is. I realize its annoying. We are trying to promote our film but the article needs to be locked. Contact me if you have any problems. My other email address is [email removed] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.209.98.240 (talk) 01:55, 31 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Surely not...


 * ...by doing the online equivalent of going down to your local library, getting a pen and scribbling in their copy of the World Book "watch our movie now"?


 * So? Isn't that a reflection of the success of your promotional campaign, as opposed to the article's (lack of) encyclopedic merit?


 * We're happy to oblige.


 * Posting your email address on a public wiki page is doing exactly that.


 * So do we. Next time, look in the top left corner of this page and think about what it means before posting. MER-C 07:09, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

certificationmap.com

 * links


 * accounts

Commercial advert linkspam for certification assistance service. Ongoing for over 2 years. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:38, 31 October 2011 (UTC)