Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2015 Archive Mar 1

asia-business.biz
Spam-only account. Kendall-K1 (talk) 14:53, 5 March 2015 (UTC)

Mark A. Landis
Page protection may need to be restored for Mark A. Landis, where persistent spamming dating back to July 2014 has resumed.

. Diffs

. Diffs

. Diffs

. Diffs

And so on. Ewulp (talk) 04:46, 9 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Semi-protected for three months. MER-C 11:08, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

User spamming various pages.
I saw spam on the Meaning of Life page and then tracked through the IP similar spam on other pages including the Academy Awards page. The IP address appears to have history spamming so please block.

Thanks, --ramblinknight (talk) 17:11, 9 March 2015 (UTC)

Spam! Fake information used to support phishing website
Wiki article created to support phishing website:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Digital_Locker_%28India%29&action=edit — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.204.115.122 (talk) 16:12, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

simplewan.com

 * links


 * accounts

SPA accounts adding blatant advert material into VoIP related articles. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 16:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

hotmoviehd.com



 * Spammers

All spammers are on the Thai Wikipedia except 223.206.248.73. MER-C 08:43, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

voicesofoklahoma.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Moxy (talk • contribs)
 * Timestamp. MER-C 12:44, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

thewebon.com
- SPA has been blocked, but they seemed pretty interested in spamming their site today. Here they swap out an admittedly bad blogspot reference with their own, but it looks rather bad-faith-y to me, considering they didn't change any of the surrounding template info. There was also this problematic edit where their spam corrupted category markup and this edit where they delete a Reference section, then add their site as a reference. They also added other inline external links here to duniyaleaks.com and vudunya.net, but I suppose we'll deal with those later. It may be premature to blacklist the site, because it's not quite an epidemic—I'm not certain, but I thought I'd mention it. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 13:56, 19 March 2015 (UTC)

ccl5.in



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:12, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Spammer adding disruptive edits on numerous pages
The unregistered user is persistently adding Spam to numerous pages. Can an Admin verify the links are Spam, and do something? Thanks! Juneau Mike (talk) 09:59, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Not sure that link as I listed it works. I'm new to this reporting. Here is a more direct link. I hope that works better. Juneau Mike (talk) 10:05, 25 March 2015 (UTC)



Warned spam4im, next time will be a block. MER-C 12:19, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Lots of articles about companies and products are failing notability
Over the past year or so I spent more and more time reviewing articles about various companies and products (ex. Category:Law firms). It is my conclusion that majority fails WP:GNG and well as specialized notability policies. I also have a feeling that I am one of the very few people who reads pages in those categories and nominates them for deletion - because I see a lot of categories like this, and all of them seem in a similar bad shape. I just prodded a spammy software article that has survived here TEN YEARS (3DVE). Is this the right place to say that we need a much more active and dedicated review of such articles? Or is there a better venue? In either case, it is my conclusion that we are swamped by spammy adverts of companies and products, and enough of them survive for years to make an average category listing "Fooian business=t-type companies in Fooland" for example, filled with a significant (25-75%) amount of articles failing the notability policies, probably made by employees or contracted (paid) spam editors. I think that estimate warrants further consideration. And action! --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:59, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * On a number of occasions I've considered making it my aim to put as much effort in to going through Category:Articles_with_a_promotional_tone and sorting through the crap, but I've never quite committed to it. Perhaps I will when I have more free time. Sam Walton (talk) 08:41, 23 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I don't recall seeing this template on majority of articles I AFD - so as large as this cat is, it is only a tip of the iceberg. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 02:57, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

I have decided to write an essay for the Signpost about the problem I see with certain type of spam. I'd appreciate your comments. I have the draft ready at Wikipedia Signpost/2015-04-08/Op-ed. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 06:49, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

brooklynteablends.com

 * Spam pages


 * Sites spammed


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



MER-C 12:51, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

thetelemedicinedirectory.com
one spammer, spamming two links into telemedicine articles. Added sites to the blacklist here: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist  Please indef this user. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 12:55, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

poemsunited.com
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpsome (talk • contribs)
 * Spammers
 * Spammers
 * Timestamp. MER-C 11:48, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

cover365.in



 * Spammers

MER-C 12:12, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

letsbrik.co


--LiberatorG (talk) 07:52, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Blacklisted for dead-link spamming . MER-C 12:15, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Mercator (retail)
GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

I could use some advice dealing with EL spamming in Mercator (retail). After removing some country-subdivision websites from "External links" (they are easily available from the company's main website and a clear violation of WP:EL) with this diff, the external links were incidentally re-inserted the same day with this diff and the edit summary "sources". I tried to explain the relevant policy and removed the ELs again, but am now close to 3RR. Could someone give advice: 1) are those "sources" appropriate references 2) how to deal with the situation? Thanks in advance. GermanJoe (talk) 17:02, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The reporting editor keeps removing legitimate sources that back up most basic information about the supermarket-chain's international locations, based on his argument that primary sources do not suffice. I have told the editor that primary source is good enough for such basic information:, but the editor disagrees: . It should also be noted that the editor issued this report only after being warned for edit-warring on his talk page: . 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 17:29, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Your initial removal of the links from the EL section was totally okay and justified, but removing the links as references is a bit complicated. I understand how people can see it as spamming but the IPs edits/reasons are valid too ("valid" as in non-vandalism and non-spamming). I don't think it's necessary though to use those as references since each of the subsections about those countries have their own references, and/so using homepages as references is just kind of weird. — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * And, IP, you did reverting too so there's no point in pointing fingers at others for edit warring with you. :p — Jeraphine Gryphon (talk) 17:58, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Unnecessary and pointy request here, as I don't plan to delete anything during the pending discussion and just restored the original version of this section before the IP-edits. As the article already relies on a lot of dependent, primary information, those "sources" are against WP:SELFSOURCE. But even assuming those sources would be OK (with a lot of leeway) and not intentional EL spam, they are still bad sources and should be replaced with better ones (newspaper articles, business magazines, ...). 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 also forgot to mention, that I posted 2 times on their talkpage about my concerns and never got a response (aside from the 3RR warning that is). GermanJoe (talk) 18:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Here is the original version that I have an issue with the reporting editor reverting (due to the reasons explained in my previous comment): . Also, the other editor joining sides on this disagreement has his own history of edit-wairring - noted here:, hence I requested page-protection. I hope that I won't have to drag this to other noticeboards as well. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 18:40, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * "drag this to other noticeboards" see WP:FORUMSHOP. And further edit-warring instead of addressing the raised concerns: The article relies far too much on primary self-published sources and the added location "sources" are just thinly veiled EL spamlinks to popularize the country sub-divisions and their stores. The existence of those country subdivisions could be "sourced" with 1 central link: [] (still self-published of course and an independent source would be better, but at least it's a clear and actual central list of the sub-divisions without (too much) promo content). GermanJoe (talk) 20:38, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * From the current 15 "source" links 10 are links to Mercator or Mercator sub-divisions, 1 is an LinkedIn listing. GermanJoe (talk) 20:55, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The reporting editor didn't bother mentioning that link before starting the edit-war, instead he kept removing the provided sources in addition to tagging the article. If he had instead acted in a helpful-contributing manner, all this might have been avoided. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 21:00, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I just found it 10 minutes ago, while I was searching for better sources - but you're welcome. Once those spamlinks are replaced then, we could close this issue. Please try to look for independent sources as well instead of just repeating the company's news. Some limited self-published information is not the problem, but the article shouldn't primarily depend on it. GermanJoe (talk) 21:14, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * If you revert your last edit and remove the tags, I am willing to replace the disputed sources with the single link. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 21:19, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * OK, done (removed tag assuming good faith). Please replace the links as compromise and try to use additional independent sources, whenever possible, for future additions. GermanJoe (talk) 21:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The disputed links have been removed and replaced with the provided source by the reporting editor. If the other party agrees, we can close this case. 2001:7E8:C676:AE01:230:48FF:FED7:4CD7 (talk) 21:42, 30 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Fine by me too. Thank you for agreeing to a compromise solution. GermanJoe (talk) 21:44, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

isin.org

 * Spammers

Helpsome (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2015 (UTC)