Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Apr 1

easypetmd.com
Both accounts used primarily for adding references to easypetmd.com. Look at http://www.easypetmd.com/(archive). The last four articles were published there less than ten hours ago and he has been active on all four wiki articles.Cirneco_dell%27EtnaCane_CorsoBasset_HoundAkbash_Dog. Some edits do expand on the content so we could assume good faith but I think it still falls under citation spamming. Take this addition to the Norfolk Spaniel article. It was reverted by the wiki user who brought it up to GA standard as he thought that it was based on his article and not independent.

Google analytics ID for easypetmd.com is the same as that for pawsdogdaycare.com. Clickbank ID for pawsdogdaycare.com is zeroyon. And here's pawsdogdaycare working their page ranking

Me asking him to declare conflict of interest and note that his source doesn't meet WP:RS standard, plus his replies. His reply is that the source is reliable because the articles are high quality("You are more than welcome to read through the texts before making a declarative judgement without properly evaluating the source and quality of the source of its entirety"), and they contain excellent original research.("(the articles) kicks back to and references the great authors of the past; Shaw, Kimble, Cauis etc. using their arguments, observations and assertions to formulate excellent theories and make previously overlooked connections") And also Other stuff exists.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)'


 * I'm sorry I'm going to have to defend myself on this one. Especially in light of the fact that Dodo Bird took it upon himself to present his case in as negative and incriminating a manner as possible. I'll try and go point by point so it is clear for dodo bird, and he does not have to spend hours fretting about who is improving the wiki.
 * Why yes, that is my work IP and my username, since I enjoy reading about the breeds and adding to them, often times I will arrive at work and flip on the computer and compare my research to what is on the wiki. I am action oriented and I will instinctively hit the edit tab and go right to editing an article. My apologizes if I have not logged in under my username prior to making every edit that I have made, it actually annoyed me as well as I am trying to get to a thousand edits by the end of the year and by failing to log in I lost those edits for my username.
 * "Both accounts used primarily for adding references to easypetmd.com. Look at http://www.easypetmd.com/(archive)."
 * As I stated to Dodo bird previously, if I am able to utilize a good source I will continue to use it. If everything that I needed was in the Ency Britanica that would be awesome, as I could just reference that material, however it is not. Additionally, many breeds are hundreds if not thousands of years old and it requires the ability to competently sift through and interpret a wide range of factors to determine their origin. Migratory patterns of early man, places and times that the wolf was domesticated, first to eighteenth century trading routes, migrations, climate changes, Geo-political events etc. Determining were many of these breeds actually originate is more a matter of putting forth the best theory with the best evidence as is possible and even then some of their origins shall remain strictly a theory. As to the jab about both being used primarily for adding reference, "both accounts are used to edit and improve the wiki".
 * Gotta head to work but will be back on in an hour or so (from there) to continue this rebuttal.
 * Alright back to it.
 * The last four articles were published there less than ten hours ago and he has been active on all four wiki articles.Cirneco_dell%27EtnaCane_CorsoBasset_HoundAkbash_Dog.
 * This falls into the category of one trying to ass-u-me to much. Anytime the site he refers to notes a change in the page, comment, cache clear, edit etc. it updates the main page and places it back on the front page as recently added/modified. An example would be as I compare the reference material to that which is on the wiki in order to improve the latter. Thus it makes sense that there is going to be a correlation reflected between the two in the form of both pages being accessed. In actuality the articles he is referring to were all written over a year ago. Specifically the dates of their original posting to the WWW are as follows:
 * Akbash Dog- 03/09/11, Cane Corso -05/02/11, Basset Hound - 05/15/11, Cirneco dell'Etna -07/07/11
 * Some edits do expand on the content so we could assume good faith but I think it still falls under citation spamming.
 * I find it to be a bit offensive that Mr. Dodobird, is trying minimize the improvements I have made in the form of relevance, content, format, cleaning out the junk etc. with the statement that "some of the edits do expand on the content..." Every change that I have made improves upon and/or expands upon the reliability, credibility and content of the article. I also take solace in the fact that as incriminating and overbearing as he is trying to be he is still forced to make the admission that the edits did improve the content of the articles. Also you as Dodo stated, it is Wiki Policy to Assume Good Faith . Additionally the "I think it still falls" has no place in encyclopedic content; nor does "I feel", "my opinion is" etc. It is or it is not, it improves or it does not, you stated it improves the articles case closed.
 * Expanding further on that, take a look at my edits, look at the before and afters on the breeds I have worked on, look at the time stamps, as in most cases I spend an hour or more working on each page I come across. I am not simply jumping onto a page and dropping a non-relevant citation and moving on in a reckless or haphazard manner which could be done in seconds. I am actually taking the time to look at every external link, every reference link, the layout of the page, the content of the page, the facts or assertions presented and make the changes necessary to improve the overall end product. I add missing sections, delete erroneous ones, remove links to sites in the external links sections, reference sections, or further reading sections etc. that are strictly there to sell a product (puppies is one that I came across- posted by a breeder), another one to a foreign language porn site etc. I also add references from other sites and take my time to completely write entire sections of material for certain breeds.
 * As to my reference style I tend to place a ref tag after every solid stand alone sentence that conveys a solid fact or idea. In the past (years ago) I wrote entire breed articles on the wiki, paragraphs and paragraphs of text (at the end of which I would ad a "ref" tag) only to have another user come in and add a one sentence blurb at the end and remove my ref tag and insert another one (thus depreciating my work in creating the entire paragraph that preceded it). I was a bit scorned by the wiki because of that and made no further contributions for a few years. I recently found myself with a lot of time on my hands and began to get back into reading the articles and can say I am pretty well appalled at some of the information presented in the articles. Dogs are my passion, they are how I have chosen to spend my lifes work and I am passionate about making sure the information about them on the wiki is correct and not a junk compilation of random thoughts, and speculation. So yes my contributions have improved the wiki as DoDo already admitted.
 * Additionally as I explained to Dodo, he wants me to take a circuitous journey to find regurgitated references for citation variety when I can simply find them all in one place, which to me is ludicrous. I apologize if I like my fishing spot, and don't feel the need to cast my line haphazardly about to catch the same fish in a different spot.
 * Take this addition to the Norfolk Spaniel article. It was reverted by the wiki user who brought it up to GA standard as he thought that it was based on his article and not independent.
 * Again Dodo is trying to ass-u-me to much. Additionally he is once again trying to put forth a jaded and incriminating proposition by hunting and pecking through the facts and choosing only the evidence he feels best suits his personal crusade. So yes lets look at the link he provided, more specifically lets look at my response to the "wiki user" who brought it up.
 * The content does not reference wikipedia and the article as a whole is considerably more detailed and provides a great deal more information than the wiki blurb.
 * The source list for the article is as follows (none of which are the wiki, and no the article is not based off the wiki as you so boldly asserted).
 * Sources http://www.spanielsinthefield.com/library-05.asp http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dogs/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Norfolk-Spaniel.html http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dog-Shows/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Spaniels.html http://books.google.com/books?id=Pj8DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=norfolk+spaniel+stonehenge&source=bl&ots=IMfkglsFZ_&sig=f5AU-aWfvAOmVlZ_BlFyVCIab58&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SHtrT6HAE9OmsAKAxsXyBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6EI8K_udJwIC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=history+of+the+norfolk+spaniel&source=bl&ots=HjjS4BTHGa&sig=33Xc3TbRmwChvtidDDiZThhDyLc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lHtrT9W4PK_ksQKizqj_BQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20norfolk%20spaniel&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.128.207 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)''
 * Additionally it should be noted that my edit has stood and the user who commented on it has conceded the point that it is not based off the wiki as I was kind enough to provide a source list for the article. This is nothing more than an attempt by Dodo to dig dirt, and try and cast an insidious light upon a good faith edit and one that has already been discussed and closed out by two other individuals.
 * ''Google analytics ID for easypetmd.com is the same as that for pawsdogdaycare.com. Clickbank ID for pawsdogdaycare.com is zeroyon.
 * Not sure what the point of this is, other than trying to build a non existent case. I mean seriously if we could all spend this much time and effort trying to improve upon the wiki instead of trying to out people it would be a much better information repository. Congrats, Dodo you have established that I am associated with a pet care business, (I already stated that in my little wiki bio page, although I did not put the name of the business for the sake of anonymity). Thank you for confirming that I work day in and day out with dogs. Additionally before you pull my credit report, or have a private investigator tail me I also tell you I'm a Pisces, a 10 year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, entered initially as a Combat Engineer and later laterally moved to EOD where I worked with the State Department as part of Colin Powells Secret Service detail. From there I went into training dogs for explosive detection, I'm married, no kids, 8 dogs, have a bachelor’s degree in Canine Studies, have worked at the community college level, have worked with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, on the board for the Animal Welfare League,etc. Additionally you can use your sleuth skills to gimme a call if you like.
 * And here's pawsdogdaycare working their page ranking
 * Really? look at the date in the URL, additionally it showed page not found when I clicked on it, and every other blog entry there is likewise dated in the 2007 range with nothing more recent. Dodo stop digging for the smoking gun in something that is 5 years old and trying to push it to the for front of this debate like it's relevant ..
 * Me asking him to declare conflict of interest and note that his source doesn't meet WP:RS standard, plus his replies. His reply is that the source is reliable because the articles are high quality("You are more than welcome to read through the texts before making a declarative judgement without properly evaluating the source and quality of the source of its entirety"), and they contain excellent original research.("(the articles) kicks back to and references the great authors of the past; Shaw, Kimble, Cauis etc. using their arguments, observations and assertions to formulate excellent theories and make previously overlooked connections")
 * Why yes I did say the above and I stand by the statement, not sure what Dodo is trying to get at here. Also in the referenced conversation Dodo also contends that each referenced article should have the personal information of the author posted prominently by it so he or somebody can judge their credibility and/or run a background check I don't know. I can tell you the site DOES NOT allow user submitted articles, that each article is reviewed by more than one professional editor, that the content is written by someone who is an "expert" on the topic matter. I mean would Dodo be this upset if Stephen Hawking started making edits to pages pertaining the universe and using his previous lectures and such as references? He's an expert in his field, Cynology however, does not tend to carry the clout that figuring out the mysteries of the universe does. Additionally this is not a criminal trial and there is no I have to step down as it is "a conflict of interest". I am improving the articles not depreciating them or damaging them in any other way. I am also attentive and have made edits to a few articles (Akita Inu) "requested by other wiki admins" who saw no problem with the reference material. I have also had users thank me for providing useful information.
 * Additionally as I told Dodo I could spend hours going through and pulling all the junk links, and garbage references out of every breed article and post them in one place for him to compare to the refs that I have submitted. If we want to compare apples to apples and judge the quality of the sources presented in the breed articles lets start lining up citations from articles and deleting all (and the accompanying text) that Dodo feels are suspect. The result would be half the articles would be gone. I have even come across breed articles with NO CITATIONS at all, which according to wiki policy, based upon a complete lack of references, the article should not even exist. Some of which have been that way for years, pure unreferenced speculation. I find it odd that I take an interest in the breeds and spend a ton of time fixing them and improving upon them and it really upsets Dodo. I don't know why, I tried to be civil and discuss the issue with him but he chose to escalate it here and is the only person out of the millions of wiki users that view those pages that has chose to make an issue out of it. As I stated other wiki editors (admins) have viewed the changes, suggested changes, and accepted them and the source. So again I don't know why Dodo seems so hell bent to run me away from the Wiki. Promote me, I'll be a dog breed expert on here.
 * To Dodo, not sure what I did to miff you, but whatever it was I apologize and I'm sure it is not so egregious that it is going to justify the time spent bantering back and forth in here over the issue. So for, however, I wronged you I apologize and if you would ever like to collaborate on an article or have dog breed related questions I would be more than happy to help you out with them. But this whole issue here is getting blown out of proportion and wasting a ton of my time, and again souring me to the wiki.
 * Correct me if I am wrong but is the Wiki not about trying to build encyclopedic content on various topics through contributions from users around the world? --Rick ( Zeroyon01 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) )
 * easypetmd.com
 * Financial incentive;
 * Additionaly;
 * Appears to have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially user submitted or self-published
 * easypetmd.com Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * Spam Accounts;
 * IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to populate articles with the Adsense website easypetmd.com , and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale replacement of all existing references within articles are never signs of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * Spam Accounts;
 * IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to populate articles with the Adsense website easypetmd.com , and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale replacement of all existing references within articles are never signs of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to populate articles with the Adsense website easypetmd.com , and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale replacement of all existing references within articles are never signs of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to populate articles with the Adsense website easypetmd.com , and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale replacement of all existing references within articles are never signs of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to populate articles with the Adsense website easypetmd.com , and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale replacement of all existing references within articles are never signs of good faith. --Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

The wholesale replacement you referred to was a dead reference (link rot) to centralpets; a wholesale pet supplies distributor that had nothing to do with dog breeds. Additionally of the 200+ edits I have done to the breed articles the majority have not been for the sole purpose you stated. The vast majority were reorganization of the pages, and trying to get the wiki articles out of the gutter and at least up to the curb. (208.78.128.207 (talk) 15:53, 7 April 2012 (UTC))

Are you serious? you reverted everything.. look at the bully kutta.. Heres the list of reliable sources you restored.. you got refs for a slang name etc. a purely spam article, full of BS.. you reverted all the changes made by someone with a degree in dog breeds to restore this crap to the articles? Do the below actually meet your standards? are high quality?..links to sites selling puppies? you guys would rather have crap articles than those from a reliable source with an educational background in the topic matter, on what basis.. I added 20 refs in hundreds of edits. What is it that you need to get easypet to reliable source status, and if we are knocking it for not being reliable how to do you justify the below?.. Let handle this evenly and go through and zap all questionable references not just the ones I submitted..

^ http://www.indianmastiff.com/our_stars.htm ^ a b "Bully Kutta Information". loveofbreeds.com. Retrieved 9 January 2012. ^ IIes, Greg (2009). The Devil’s Punchbook. Simon and Schuster. p. 279. ISBN # 0743292510. ...“It’s white, and it’s big. I think the breed is called a Bully Kutta.” I ‘ve rarely seen astonishment on Kelly’s face, but I see it now. “That’s a Pakistani breed,” he says.… ^ "Alangu Mastiff Dogs - Indian Mastiff Dog Breed". iloveindia.com. Retrieved 11 December 2010. ^ Love of breeds: Bully Kutta ^ The Book of Herodotus, (1.192) ^ K2 Bully Kutta ^ Beasts of the East

You also reverted changes to the golden retriever that users had given me appreciation for, as well as the Akita, and restored all the links to nefarious sites like dogbreedinfo dot com an obvious self published spam site? seriously.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroyon01 (talk • contribs) 16:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

jetsetmag.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


 * Spammers
 * Spammer used personal attacks
 * Spammer used personal attacks


 * Spammer used personal attacks
 * Spammer used personal attacks
 * Spammer used personal attacks
 * Spammer used personal attacks
 * Spammer used personal attacks
 * Spammer used personal attacks




 * See also
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive745
 * Articles for deletion/Jetset (magazine)

MER-C 06:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Accelerize New Media, Inc




--Hu12 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Spam accounts

www.hardinfo-benchmark.com + others
Adding links to low-content sites. Started again after 1st batch reverted - SimonLyall (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Rlstunnel.org
Warez spammer abusing Wikipedia to boost page rank. — ThePowerofX 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Oilpaintingfactory.com
Anonymous editors from China keep on reverting edits on this page Pino Daeni, peppering the article with links from oilpaintingfactory.com, a Chinese website that sells mass-produced art. The edits were also made earlier by an IP address that I also traced to China. Agung mayi (talk) 09:53, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Nagaqueen13:
User Nagaqueen13 (with one contribution) murdered the article Bull_Terrier with links to various adsense sites. Not sure how to do the nifty ip tracking and see if the user is also using other IP's or usernames for the same purpose but the nature of this one edit should warrant some looking into. He/She may be employed to act in such a nefarious manner by one or all of the reference url's..

(cur | prev) 16:21, 13 December 2011‎ Nagaqueen13  (talk | contribs)‎. . (26,608 bytes) (+6,125)‎. . (→‎Temperament) (undo)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroyon01 (talk • contribs)
 * They made one single contribution, this one, almost half a year ago. I think you've removed all the links--there is no need for any further investigation, it seems to me. Drmies (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Was not sure what the correct course of action was when I come across trash like that, so I reported it. It was my understanding that a single contribution loaded with links would qualify as spammy and may warrant seeing if those same URL's were spammed under various URL's (sock puppets)that may have been associated.(Zeroyon01 (talk) 17:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Well, if this is an ongoing problem it should probably be reported here, yes. Individual acts of spamming can be handled with a (templated) warning, or in the end a report at WP:AIV. But this is so old, and such a singular act, that no admin would act on it. I do appreciate your effort to keep such link spam out of articles--thank you for that. Drmies (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, I will eventually get the hang of the community here and how things work. I seem to have gotten off on the wrong foot as it is. Trying to clean a lot of garbage out of the breeds under the guidelines of WP:RS. (Zeroyon01 (talk) 18:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC))
 * Have you seen WP:RSN? Drmies (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have, that is where a particular sources reliability is debated. If you asking in reference to recent changes I made, the majority of the links I removed (80%) were in the "external links" section just to be there. Additionally its reliability has been touched on previously and it was also noted for being a spam site in the archives. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroyon01 (talk • contribs) 11:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

marketpublishers.com
User appears to be dedicated to adding facts sourced to a website which is presumably equally dedicated to selling its reports. I haven't done anything yet (severe AGF). Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Related
 * ru:Special:Contributions/Songriter
 * Classic WP:REFSPAMming by Songriter en. The en ant the end of Songriter must denote the spammers en.Wikipedia.org account. ru.Wikipedia.org must be the main account. either way, users blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ru:Special:Contributions/Songriter
 * Classic WP:REFSPAMming by Songriter en. The en ant the end of Songriter must denote the spammers en.Wikipedia.org account. ru.Wikipedia.org must be the main account. either way, users blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 22:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Template for Russia Today


What is the purpose for this template other than to spam links to a specific news organization? It is being justified as to help editors find a more "international viewpoint" and "avoid bias", but doesn't this more so promote a Russian viewpoint and a Russia Today bias? We already have templates for finding news sources that use Google news, and if we want to make that more international then we can set the settings to seek out international sources. This seems like it has a large potential to become spammy, as in the example they provide on the templates page:

How is Russia Today a better source for the Tohoko earthquake over any of the numerous Japanese newspapers that are written in English? I don't think templates like this are appropriate, promoting one news source is already biased and this could easily just be used as a way to spam links to a news site.AerobicFox (talk) 03:32, 12 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Hi AerobicFox, and thank you for inviting me here to participate in the discussion.


 * If I may try to answer your questions, looking over them I guess I'd start with the ones that are easiest for me to answer first.


 * Q. "How is Russia Today a better source for the Tohoko earthquake over any of the numerous Japanese newspapers that are written in English?"
 * A. I can't find any that can be organized into such a 'single link motherload' like this. comment I would really appreciate your assistance because I can't find anything 1/4 as good as this. If my mathematical skills are good enough, I counted more than 100 articles about the Japanese earthquake, and if you can find one that gives me just a few dozen links I would much appreciate it. I have long wanted to make new templates, as well as add to this template other useful sources besides Russia Today. If NHK or tbs have a similar page, I've yet to see it and would love to include it. I have asked as best I can for help in this matter, to find more sources that can assist in this endeavor, as it is wikipedia policy that we try to counter Bias where we can.
 * Q. What is the purpose for this template other than to spam links to a specific news organization?
 * A. I was sure I put this into the template documentation, let me check. here it is.
 * Creates a Russia Today trends search link for the supplied term. By default, the search link is for the Russia Today trends index page. The template is designed to assist editors on topics where domestic news services may not cover a topic in depth, or assist an article to comply with Neutral point of view policy, avoid bias, or in cases where the topic has a national link and widespread interest in Russia.
 * I have added the following summary from the lede of the RT article, as the wikilink I provided from the start doesn't seem to have made things clear enough.
 * RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a government-funded global multilingual television news network based in the Russian Federation. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-owned RIA Novosti. Please read the wikipedia article for more information about RT, including controversy and Bias.
 * If that is still not sufficient, then I can maybe copy more of the article into the template doc, or even start fixing the article up a little.

RFC This template has twice been queried in regards to 'is it spam', perhaps it would be useful if you can give me some opinions, or better yet, 'further reading', guidelines, policy or such, that I may add onto the templates docs to help guide editors in future in deciding if it is within or without the rules and guidelines. I think this would save time. I shall see if I can add a little tag to the template saying 'whats this?' linked into the docs at the section outlining thoughts both ways on the subject. Thanks, Penyulap  ☏ Oh, and if you could write in a manner that addresses those editors who would follow the link, I'd much appreciate it. I can expend great effort cut'n'pasting that way... Penyulap  ☏  20:44, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
 * comment/question in regards to "potential to become spammy" should things be judged on what they are, or on their potential ? I would have thought it was the former, however I'm no expert of this topic.
 * In regards to "promoting one news source is already biased and this could easily just be used as a way to spam links to a news site." that is precisely what has happened here, a lot of my thought went along the lines of 'Google is a corporate news service with it's corporate agenda, so if it has a search template then obviously a major government news service would clearly at least match it, whilst others would suggest that a government run rather than corporate run news service has less bias.. In regards to google settings, I haven't ever seen a button or widget that can switch off google's bias. is there one, or, is google not biased ?
 * I'm not paid to edit the 'wik, I do it for free, if you know of anyone paying money to do what I am doing, please, sign me up, I'd love to get rich quick. I found RT because of including the Mars500 project into my favorite article, the ISS, and after all the searching I had done for Mars500, when I came across this site, I just had to share it so others could get as much assistance. It's in like more than 50 article talkpages now, and until now, it had one 'this is spam' revert, which the person didn't elaborate on at all, and one other removal, which, after I enquired on that editors talkpage, they examined the template and then gave me incredible technical assistance and improved the wording of the documentation a great deal. Clearly, it still needs a lot of work to improve it's presentation, and if you can tell me where there are links to Japanese newspapers that would be an awesome help, I search Japanese topics a great deal, for the Kibo ISS module, HTV white stork robot spaceship that brings cargo to the station, and the JAXA space program, I haven't found the English speaking newspapers online that you speak of, if you could give me just one that is one tenth as good as teh RT banner I would be so very grateful. If you can find one that I can use in a single link fashion to a trend page same as this with 14 the stories, I'd be absolutely astonished. Penyulap  ☏  05:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
 * If we're going to allow this, then we may as well have a Domino's Pizza button on every talk page. After all, Wikipedia editors get hungry, so it would improve their productivity. Or we could go the NPR route: banner ads on articles that say things like, "This article is made possible by a generous grant from Domino's Pizza. If you would like to make a $25 donation to the Wikimedia Foundation, push this button. As a thank-you gift, we will deliver a pizza to your home within 30 minutes or your money back." Of course, only five of those dollars would go to the Wikimedia Foundation. The other twenty would be for fundraising costs, including the thank-you gift. Zyxwv99 (talk) 21:41, 14 April 2012 (UTC)


 * these are all commercial banners, click them and you get a ubiquitous commercial site. If I may ask you to clarify your point a little, are you saying that commercial sites are not allowed on wiki, or are you saying only the monopolies are allowed and competition is prohibited, or are you saying that Rt is actually a commercial site at all ? As far as research shows, it's not a commercial site.
 * these are all commercial banners, click them and you get a ubiquitous commercial site. If I may ask you to clarify your point a little, are you saying that commercial sites are not allowed on wiki, or are you saying only the monopolies are allowed and competition is prohibited, or are you saying that Rt is actually a commercial site at all ? As far as research shows, it's not a commercial site.
 * these are all commercial banners, click them and you get a ubiquitous commercial site. If I may ask you to clarify your point a little, are you saying that commercial sites are not allowed on wiki, or are you saying only the monopolies are allowed and competition is prohibited, or are you saying that Rt is actually a commercial site at all ? As far as research shows, it's not a commercial site.
 * these are all commercial banners, click them and you get a ubiquitous commercial site. If I may ask you to clarify your point a little, are you saying that commercial sites are not allowed on wiki, or are you saying only the monopolies are allowed and competition is prohibited, or are you saying that Rt is actually a commercial site at all ? As far as research shows, it's not a commercial site.


 * Going on the Pizza test, when I click the Rtnews for Japan Earthquake given above, and disable the ad filters I normally use, I notice that three new items come up, which are not commercial ads at all. One is for free Russian language lessons, (educational, I might have a look at that later actually) an 'ad' for an RT app, which is also free, and a third 'ad' which is for 'Rt news on your android', which is also free. Unfortunately for anyone wanting to spend their money, there are no opportunities I can find here. If your looking to buy Pizza, or to buy anything else, you'll possibly need to look further than the rtnews template. I expect it's not hard to find places to spend money on google, but even looking through the individual new story pages, I can't see any advertising on this government run site.


 * Possibly there are guidelines somewhere that define 'spam', failing that, I expect that someone might be able to use a dictionary, because it is quite clear there is no pizza or anything else to buy here, and this is actually less 'spammy' and clearly non commercial than the other search templates that we have on wiki.




 * Here is one that links through to a wide variety of commercial sites. If you are looking at a slippery slope for search templates, you are, without any doubt at all, looking at the slope from the bottom, not the top. Penyulap  ☏  01:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Looking at the idea of incorporating it into 'search for', maybe it has merit, as searching the news sites in a general manner is good where there is no trend page. If there is no presorted list of articles on a news site, then there is no other choice but to do a robotic search, and such a search is of course broader and fuzzier in it's results.
 * Where a trend page does exist, there is merit in linking to it, I haven't looked into the existence of tagging practices on the different news sites that are in use currently, nor have I written search templates other than this one, though I guess it does grab my interest a little now I'm looking into it a bit more. In this case writing a search template was a nobrainer really, as the 'searching' has already been done by someone at the other end, and it's a simple link to that page. Downside is, if there is no trending news listing, you can't use this template at all on that page. So the rtnews template's application is very limited that's for sure, but it's also very useful as someone at the other end has done the sorting, saving us the trouble. Penyulap  ☏  02:02, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Are there any search trends kinds of templates that you know of, where this can be included, I mean, there are more than 100 sources in the example given, so it would be a useful addition to a trend search template, so long as the other ones on the template also had good hits for the topic as well. It'd be useful to have a few hundred filtered sources listed a click away on a single template, rather than a broad automatic search to wade through. Penyulap  ☏  12:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually I was aware of the fact that RT is, like PBS, the BBC, and DW, not commercial. Instead, I was thinking of the slippery slope. After reading your reply, especially the links, I see now that I was indeed looking at the slippery slope from the bottom. Zyxwv99 (talk) 13:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My apologizes, I forgot about this topic.
 * 1) Google does not have a bias, because it does not write articles, and its algorithms for choosing articles has no "corporate influence" as you claim. For that matter, Google links to articles written by corporate, governmental, and non-profit news organizations. If you want to construct an argument around how Google may be secretly accepting bribes from corporations to change their code to give preference to certain people then please provide some evidence or excuse us for not taking such an argument seriously.
 * 2) Templates can easily be constructed to provide news from many international perspectives given Googles options to see results based around different countries. We have US edition, Argentina edition, Japan edition, etc.
 * 3) Perhaps I need to make clear my own complaint. While it is true that you have explained the purpose of this template, you have not explained how this template fulfills this purpose. In order to avoid bias, and provide an international viewpoint it would make sense to create a template with multiple international sources, but you have made a template from one nation that only provides one source, which seems to clearly contradict your stated purpose.
 * Perhaps I am preemptively bringing arguments against a template which hasn't shown itself to cause much of a problem, but I am concerned with the acceptance of this type of—IMO extremely partisan— templating, as well as the type of articles in which this has already been applied to. Just about every article that this template has been put onto is either about political problems in the Middle East, Russia, or the U.S. Why do Iran–Israel relations and Arab–Iran relations have links to RussiaToday, but no links to Iran, Israeli, or any other Middle Eastern media? How does adding templates to RussiaToday on 20+ Occupy Wallstreet-related articles make them more unbiased? I may just go ahead and make some international templates, if nothing else based around News sources.AerobicFox (talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I do not see why we need this template, while:

does include rt.com as one of the results. The google search is independent, are we now going to get specific search templates for any news service available. That form of preference of adding source-searching is a form of spam, and a non-necessary bias in any form. Can we please delete this template? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I've TfD'd this template. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

investorscopes.com


BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

kishangarh marble related spam

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

--Hu12 (talk) 01:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued;
 * Bl'd--Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Bl'd--Hu12 (talk) 22:28, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sock Spammer

 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Oct_1
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Thatlife/Archive
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Thatlife/Archive

continued abuse, Bl'd--Hu12 (talk) 02:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Wow, was that one still active, I've seen this guy .. a long time ago. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

corkfilmproject.com

 * link


 * see also


 * accounts

Repeated addition of link to by multiple SPA accounts, as well as creating advert pages for the site (pages were speedy deleted due to only containing advert mentions). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 02:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

eduvision.edu.pk Spamming

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

aggressive persistent abuse. Bl'd--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

philipkdickfans.com Adsense ref Spam

 * Reliable_sources/Noticeboard


 * User:Mirfishe/sandbox Linkfarm
 * User:Mirfishe/sandbox Linkfarm
 * User:Mirfishe/sandbox Linkfarm

Mrfisher and Mrfishe appears to be Michael Fisher - the Web Site Developer / Web Content Manager for http://www.philipkdickfans.com. Worth noting; Claims to "Assimilate content from other sites..". --Hu12 (talk) 23:52, 18 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Mirfishe --Hu12 (talk) 00:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Facebook spam
IP address has spammed Let's Talk About Sex with this link this today and once on the 7th.--Breawycker (talk to me!) 12:50, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

cruiseastute.com

 * link


 * accounts

Repeated blanket addition of link into multiple ship-related articles. Newly created website which fails WP:ELYES and WP:ELMAYBE, as well as WP:NOT. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Red Bull Music Academy Spamming
"yes rbma means redbullmusicacademy and this account was only created to update those links. "
 * Articles
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 01:36, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Requesting a reconsideration and reversal of the decision to block 360Cities from Wikipedia
Hello,

My name is Jan Vrsinsky and I work for 360Cities.net. Recently you blocked 360Cities from Wikipedia. I have carefully investigated your reasons for blocking us and I believe I understand them.

We would grateful if you would consider the following points we have prepared in response:


 * 1) You quoted the following sentence from our help page that advises our members on how to behave when using Wikipedia: Please feel free to add links to 360Cities on Wikipedia. This sentence has now been removed. The URL of the page is 360cities(dot)net/wikipedia/how-to-behave-on-wikipedia (I can't put a clickable link here since our site is blocked)
 * 2) This point was only one of many on that page from our site, the purpose of which is to instruct our users in how to behave properly on Wikipedia, and help prevent misuse.
 * 3) We deeply regret that our initiative was misunderstood as an incentive to spam Wikipedia.
 * 4) We have now made further changes to the page to make our intentions even more obvious.
 * 5) Additionally we would like to inform you that our user Thorsten Kuttig (360cities(dot)net/profile/iednlab), whose behavior on Wikipedia triggered most of the recent spam alerts, is only a registered user of our website and is not staff member of 360Cities. He earned no ad revenue from his actions.
 * 6) We disapprove of what he did and have informed him of his violations. 360Cities.net has thousands of registered users in its worldwide community of panorama photographers, and it would be a pity if they were unable to continue occasionally to enhance Wikipedia articles with links to their interactive 360-degree photos because of the misbehavior of one or our users.

In view of the above, we'd like therefore to request a reconsideration and reversal of your decision to block 360Cities from Wikipedia. May I ask you to let us know if this is possible?

Sincerely,

Janvrsinsky (talk) 07:48, 20 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Your Spam "initiative" was not misunderstood. The purpose of "help center" page was to instruct your members on how to spam Wikipedia for the explicit purpose of generating revenue. The intent and point being made was not to "instruct our users in how to behave properly on Wikipedia, and help prevent misuse".....its intent was how not to get caught spamming ... again. Your site was caught previously spamming Wikipedia and was well aware Wikipedia's spam policies, yet continued to promote a policy, through a "help center" page, of how to spam Wikipedia;  . Lastly (#6), It would be disingenuous to claim you "disapprove" of actions your help center policy purportedly continues to promote and approve of.


 * Additionally, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site represententatives. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an established editor can request it on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source, when there are no other reasonable alternatives available.--Hu12 (talk) 15:39, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

airportcodesdatabase.net

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 22:24, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

assorted investment spam

 * (redirect)
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 03:35, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Alison Lever Spam

 * Registrant: Alison Lever
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts



Also spammung other sites--Hu12 (talk) 04:51, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Brunswick County Tourism Development Authority

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

Bit of a history.. adding it here for the record--Hu12 (talk) 15:18, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Analytics UA-21020709 spam



 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 18:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

surrogacymed.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 22:07, 22 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued, IP temp blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 16:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

donorivf

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

throw away sock spamming.--Hu12 (talk) 04:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

find-mba.com



 * Spammers
 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.10.78
 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.10.78
 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.10.78


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.165.145
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.165.145
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.165.145


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.2.171
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.2.171
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.2.171


 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.167.227
 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.167.227
 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.167.227
 * Spammed on Portuguese Wikipedia, see pt:Special:Contributions/93.102.167.227


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/193.137.49.130
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see pt:Special:Contributions/193.137.49.130

MER-C 11:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

altafseer.com and related Spamming

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * altafsir.com is already blacklisted on meta, it appears they are now spamming mirrors--Hu12 (talk) 01:50, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

superyachtfan.com



 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * fr:Special:Contributions/Visserph

--Hu12 (talk) 02:49, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Adsense 0383122717582604 spam

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 04:23, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Peter J. Vis spam



 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 04:39, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Conntinuing
 * creating spam socks, is never a sign of good faith--Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * creating spam socks, is never a sign of good faith--Hu12 (talk) 14:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

openculture.com



 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 04:58, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The Times Group

 * Articles
 * Articles


 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 05:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sockpuppet investigations/Rock5410 Possibly related?--Hu12 (talk) 05:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Geoshrad Media



 * (redirect)
 * Related
 * Spam Articles
 * Spam Articles
 * Spam Articles
 * Spam Articles


 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

BIG OTHER blog Spamming



 * Accounts
 * Accounts

bigother.com/author/greggerke/ bigother.com/author/adjameson/  bigother.com/author/bigotherbigother/ Apparently the authors are spamming their own articles. --Hu12 (talk) 04:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Figure/Ground Communication
--Hu12 (talk) 05:10, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2012_Archive_Mar_1
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

tinkersource.com



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



MER-C 11:59, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

User:Ackuna sending unsolicited commercial email
User:Ackuna (company name), whom I’ve never heard of and has made essentially no edits, contacted me (via email through “Email this user”) with the following message: This is clearly spam; could this user be stopped, please?

(This page seems to be about article spam; dunno where to go for email spam.)

I’ve also left a curt note on the talk page: User talk:Ackuna.

Thank you!
 * —Nils von Barth (nbarth) (talk) 15:48, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Dear fellow Wikipedians, I have just received an email from User:Ackuna inviting me to use his crowdsourced translation service, with the following text:

(contents of spam e-mail removed, available in history)

Just to let you know. Regards, --Fadesga (talk) 16:08, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I have blocked, , and indefinitely for sending spam e-mail. (Ackuna3 was the one I got the e-mail from.) All three have account creation blocked and e-mailing other editors blocked. I can't find any other new accounts with similar names. Angr (talk) 16:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've redacted the text of the spam e-mails above; no reason to unintentionally promote the site here. The content remains available in the history. -- Kinu  t/c 17:14, 26 April 2012 (UTC)


 * unredacted the email, formatted it for redability and added a collapsable box. This is a high volume project and the history will soon be burried and innacessable for quick future reference. I see no reason hide it. Our obligation is to ensure our records are correct and factual, lets be transparent for accountability. --Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ackuna.com data
Protected Domain Services - Customer ID: NCR-3804161


 * Analytics related sites;
 * Analytics related sites;

--Hu12 (talk) 20:47, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

TR Spamming



 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Substepr

 * Article
 * Article

Articles for deletion/Substepr
 * Accounts


 * substepr.com is a Wiki, with 28 registered users  and is a Link normally to be avoided (#4,#10, #12) and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 21:13, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Still spamming. final warnings--Hu12 (talk) 21:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Kaniamea Online Publishing, LLC



 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 00:40, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

bollywoodwaale.com



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



MER-C 08:44, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Georama Pty. Ltd. Spamming

 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Continued
 * BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BL'd--Hu12 (talk) 22:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Georama Pty. Ltd. did not spam Wikipedia. I added the links because I thought they were an interesting contribution to the pages. For example, on the Lincoln National Park page it would seem reasonable to add a virtual tour of Lincoln National Park and I happened to add several links on the same day. I fail to see how adding relevant and interesting content to Wikipedia is counted as spam and I will no longer contribute to Wikipedia for this reason. Ann. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.218.71.214 (talk) 01:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)