Jump to content

User talk:Requestion: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 669: Line 669:
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand.svg|25px|left]]}}} ''' LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING''' This is a first degree formal warning out of a set of 3 levels.
{{{icon|[[Image:Stop hand.svg|25px|left]]}}} ''' LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING''' This is a first degree formal warning out of a set of 3 levels.


Your qualified refusal to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] in this dispute after numerous propositions of your opponant to come to a reasonable settlement is incompatible with [[Wikipedia:5_Pillars]] and [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]. You fail to provide adequate evidence for your accusations of spam at
Your qualified refusal to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] in this dispute after numerous propositions of your opponant to come to a reasonable settlement is incompatible with [[Wikipedia:5_Pillars]] and [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]. You fail to provide adequate evidence for the qualifications "spam" in your accusations of at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam. Spreading unmotivated of disputable accusations can be considered as spam and can seriously harm the interests, reputation and privacy of other users. Deliberate attempts to harm the interests, reputation or privacy of other users is both a criminal offence and is incompatible with [[Wikipedia:5_Pillars]] and [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]. In order to interrupt the escalating and ongoing damage allready done You are kindly requested to remove the inappropriate and disputed comments and accusations within 24 hours there and on the all locations You might have illecitely posted them, as well as to revert all blankings for which you failed gain [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. In order to keep the discussion together you are kindy invited to participate in discussion at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] there. Please do keep to [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]] there as well.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam. Spreading unmotivated of disputable accusations can be considered as spam and can seriously harm the interests, reputation and privacy of other users. Deliberate attempts to harm the interests, reputation or privacy of other users is both a criminal offence and is incompatible with [[Wikipedia:5_Pillars]] and [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]]. In order to interrupt the escalating and ongoing damage allready done You are kindly requested to remove the inappropriate and disputed comments and accusations within 24 hours there and on the all locations You might have illecitely posted them, as well as to revert all blankings for which you failed gain [[Wikipedia:Consensus]]. In order to keep the discussion together you are kindy invited to participate in discussion at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach [[Wikipedia:Consensus]] there. Please do keep to [[Wikipedia:Etiquette]] there as well.
--[[User:Bully-Buster-007|Bully-Buster-007]] 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
--[[User:Bully-Buster-007|Bully-Buster-007]] 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Revision as of 13:21, 9 May 2007

Barnstar

The Spamstar of Glory
Presented to Requestion for dliligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia

This barnstar is in recognition of your tireless effort to clean Wikipedia of unacceptable external links. Although we may have different views on what constitutes a reliable source for the article space, I have the highest regard for your outstanding dedication to identifying and rooting out spam, reverting vandalism and eliminating other nonsense. ✤ JonHarder talk 21:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jon, while we do have differing views on things it is important to know that I do respect your opinion. Thank you for awarding me this high honor. I hope this Spamstar works in warding off all the angry spammers that come here seeking a pound of my flesh. (Requestion 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like both of you! We all tend to have some diversity of opinion (which is good), however the common thread is keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. A thankless task for the most part, but invaluable to the project. congrats!--Hu12 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spamstar of Glory

The Spamstar of Glory
To Requestion for ferocity in the battle against LinkSpam on Wikipedia. --Hu12 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

keep up the good work!--Hu12 08:09, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hu12, I appreciate the honor. (Requestion 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi ! Are You guys not exagerating a bit? I do not understand how ferocity can be a justification for a reward in this medium. I thought that reasonability and Wikipedia:Etiquette were more appropriate ways of conduct. Remember one of its Golden Rules: "treat others as you want them to treat you." Or Do You like to be treated ferocitely ? --80.201.19.94 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do expect any good Wikipedian to ferociously kick me left and right, should I ever insert mass-posted promotions for my website. Femto 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this : User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#OCaml_for_Scientists
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Linkspam_ast.cac.washington.edu.3F
and this: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_1#Clarification_of_rich_media_section
and this: User_talk:Requestion#User:Artipol.27s_spam_reversion
Are all those people fanatically advertising their site or ar they providing relevant information as per WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."'
Dont you think it is vandalism when Requestion blanks the information provided without even reading the content as he did here? User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet
Dont You find it incredibly arrogant Requestion decides in a few seconds over the relevance of so many valuable contributions by competant people mostly specialists in their own fields on basis the most disputable and most inconsequent reasons?
By blanking their information Requestion is denying Wikipedia readers access to their valuable information. His blanking goes well beyond the purpose of spam fighting, as it decreases the the quality of Wikipedia rather than increasing it. This is spam fundmentalism of the worst kind which it is doing WP far more bad than good.
The complaints about his stubborn behaviour disregarding all resonable arguments are numerous and are very justified in most cases. The damage of such spam fundamentalism is not restraint to the direct damage of mass destruction of information. Such spam fundamentalism is also frightening bona fide contributors, and keeping them from their task of adding valuable information while Ciber bullying newcomers is terrorising the Wikipedia community chasing valuable contributors away when they see their contributions vandalised.
No ferocity is not a justification for a reward in this medium. Reasonability and [Wikipedia:Etiquette] are more appropriate ways of conduct. - unsigned comment by (User:87.64.93.128 15:49, 5 May 2007)
Yes, all those people except Artipol were "fanatically advertising their site." They also were violating several Wikipedia policies. The Artipol case was about a link farm and I didn't actually delete any of his links or edits. It also should be mentioned that the wavelet and OCaml threads are about the same individual, as are the washington.edu and rich media threads. (Requestion 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
These external links are fully compatible with WP instructions "What to link": see : WP:EL "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means. --87.64.93.128 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken that quote completely out of context and have conveniently chosen to ignore the rest of WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. That quote is about being a source for an article. Maybe the editors that have deleted your workforall.net links don't think your website is a WP:RS or WP:V. Or maybe they think you are spamming. Or maybe they think you have a conflict of interest. I don't know. You'll have to ask them that question. (Requestion 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi guys ! i'm back. Sorry to have kept you waiting so long. We had a hell of a celebration party last night that lasted a bit longer than expected. I also decided to create an account: user:Bully-Buster-007. I did not realise this was so easy,and certainly would advise everyone to do so. Well... back to business. Were where we left. Ah yes... the appropriateness of external links.
Dear user:requestion Please be precise as to what rule you refer to in a debate. We do not feel the need to comment on all WP rules you object to us here. You very well know the discussion about legitimity of external links has come to the point that you should not be interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link this source in case the source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article. We thought you knew this universal juridic principle of supremacy of conflicting rules as it is also common sense. --Bully-Buster-007 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Jdh30 Warnings

Please stop spamming my user page with warnings and objecting to my deleting your spam. I would give you the finger but I can't find that SVG so I'm giving you the whole hand instead. Jon Harrop 05:29, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charming. (Requestion 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Domains


Socks

Legend:

The numeric value represents the number of external spam links that were added. A zero value represents a that a self-referencing name or product was mentioned. The m value stands for "modify" which represents the nuturing and cultivation of an existing spam link.


It all began March 2005. A total of 41 Flying Frog Consultancy related external spam links have been added by the above accounts. I've deleted 21 of the links [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] which means that other independent editors have deleted the remaining 20 external links. So the claim that I am the only person deleting ffconsultancy.com links is clearly false. It is also important to note that many of these links have been added, deleted, and re-added multiple times. (Requestion 19:37, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]


Blanking coincidence


Notes

  • Jon Harrop reported me to the AIV as a vandal and has since called me a vandal many times.
  • Jon Harrop reported User:Pjacobi to the AIV as a vandal .
  • Jdh30's contribution log has recently exhibited a flury of activity. It is important to look at Special:Contributions/Jdh30 before March 29 2007 which is when the final {{spam4}} was awarded. Jdh30 only had 34 edits at that point and the many of those were the source of 10 link spam additions.
  • Jon Harrop refers to the {{spam}} warnings as spam and considers the removal of spam as vandalism. This basic difference in POV has generated a great deal of conflict.


Threads


External references

  • Wikipedia spam links were discussed on the Novemeber 2005 Caml Language mailing list [20]. Interesting quote: "The point is, if Harrop doesn't have megalomania, he sure acts like he does." Read the entire thread because there is quite a bit more relevant information. Particularly [21].
  • The comp.lang.lisp thread [22] which likely was the motivation for Jon Harrop to suspect my identity to be that of Dr. Thomas Fischbacher.



So three of the socks are verified to be Jon Harrop and the other two are low edit SPA's. This Talk:Objective_Caml#On_Commercials_in_this_article thread from October 2005 is very interesting. At one point in time the OCaml article had 7 external links to ffconsultancy.com and the 80.229.56.224 IP resolved to the jdh30.plus.com domain. Jon had a conflict about link spam with a couple other editors. Self promotion and advertising violations were mentioned and someone said this interesting quote: "Doubly so, as there is quite some consensus of Jon Harrop showing quite undue behaviour on the usenet as well as some mailing lists, alienating large parts of the functional community." I'm still stepping throught the OCaml diffs trying to figure what happened but so far it looks like a bit of unpleasantness transpired. (Requestion 08:31, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Deleting your spam from my user page is not vandalism. Jon Harrop 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is vandalism if your intent is to hide your actions (spamming and vandalism in this case).
If I wanted to hide my actions I wouldn't be discussing them here. Jon Harrop 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is interesting that you blanked your talk page several times right before you asked for administrator intervention. There are many admins that will block you for such behavior. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Three admins are now involved and none of them have suggested that. Indeed, only Femto commented and he said that blanking my own talk page "is not vandalism". Jon Harrop 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You are referring to Thomas Fischbacher. Yes, we had a dispute although it was originally because he did not like the conclusions I drew about the Lisp programming language from the ray tracer benchmark on my site. He also tried to removed all links that had anything to do with me. I have noticed that you bear an uncanny resemblance to Thomas Fischbacher.
My static IP is 80.229.56.224. You deleted links to free content hosted on ffconsultancy.com that were added by other people (who did not have a conflict of interests). I have merely tried to undo the damage by replacing the lost links. Jon Harrop 10:54, 9 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No I didn't. I only deleted ffconsultancy.com links that were added by you. (Requestion 18:01, 9 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I already cited three counter examples on my talk page. There are many more. Jon Harrop 03:53, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm waiting on some explanations concerning the ?wikipedia tracking tag [23] in your first counter-example and the old signature [24] in your third counter-example [25]. It appears that those two IP's are definitely you and the single edit SPA in your second counter-example [26] has a very high possibility of being you too. (Requestion 00:27, 12 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  1. We've used Google Analytics to track referrals since Nov 2005 so the tag was of no use to us. So it was either added by someone independent or by someone wanting to lend credence to their conspiracy.
  2. The contribution signed by me was me. Here's another counter-example, about you marking the Hilbert-Hermitian wavelet page as a COI despite the fact that the reference to my work was added by User:Jitse Niesen, whose user talk page you spammed immediately afterwards.
  3. Is that "high possibility" of being me the person who contributed from Africa or the one from Japan, or was it Australia? Can you explain how the IP address that resolves to Africa can be "traced back to the UK"? Jon Harrop 02:31, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't modify other editors comments. I appreciate what you are trying to do but chopping up other peoples comments breaks the flow, it makes it difficult to figure out who said what, and it is considered bad form on Wikipedia. I am reverting the formating of my comment to the original paragraph. I am changing your comment to be an ordered list. If you don't like that layout of your comment then change it to something else that suites your taste. Maybe a paragraph will work better? I'll give you a chance to reformat and/or re-edit. I'll be back tomorrow to reply. (Requestion 06:58, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
  1. About the ?wikipedia tracking tag; a "grep '?wikipedia' access.log | wc -l" is simple enough. That IP also did [27] which is a re-addition of a link that was recently cultivated by User_talk:80.229.56.224 with this [28] edit.
  2. I explained the {{coi}} tag in detail here [29] and [30].
  3. I explained the African IP address being in the UK here [31]. And sorry, you're wrong, it really is in the UK. (Requestion 20:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Ask someone who knows how to use traceroute. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"So a ?wikipedia tag is completely useless to you?" [32] Google Analytics, I get it. Well, that must explain why you've been using the ?usenet tracking tags since December 2006! [33] (Requestion 23:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sweet. Femto 14:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not modify the above work sheet. Jon Harrop's comments from this edit [34] have been moved here and put in an ordered list format: (Requestion 19:20, 17 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

  1. Note that the last two are empty. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  2. by multiple people who are not all related to that company. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  3. But my IP address has many more edits dating back several years, including the creation and development of many pages that you have vandalized. Jon Harrop 17:36, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Delta-sigma_modulation

Hello Requestion. You removed my external link from Delta-sigma_modulation and left a message on my talk page suggesting I discuss it on Talk:Delta-sigma_modulation if I felt the link should be included. I did, and the person who maintains Delta-sigma_modulation has endorsed my link and given his consent for me to re-instate it; but I wanted to run it by you first, in case it came up on your radar, and one of your scripts escalated the threat level to DefCon3, banning me from using the Internet. I've also proposed a correction to a small error on the page, and I was thinking of citing my link as a source, instead of adding it back as an EL. So, is that OK with you? Also, would you mind removing that thing you put on my talk page, now that I am rehabilitated. --80.177.105.226 21:22, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, you weren't banned, it was only a defcon2 warning. You did the right thing by asking on the talk page. I would like to applaud your efforts in following the Wikipedia rules. Adding it yourself is still a slight WP:COI problem and your addition might appear on the radar of some other future spam fighter. Why don't you ask Katanzag to add the link? No one would question his authority and your link is more likely to be a permanent fixture that way. I really do think you are rehabilitated and you have no idea how happy this makes me. I am going to strike out that spam warning and add a brief comment explaining why. Thank you. (Requestion 21:58, 11 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

More fun

I was reluctant to post this at WT:WPSPAM ((no point driving spammers underground), but it's fun to troll the web-site auction sites looking to see who's selling sites and bragging about Wikipedia links. Here's one, for instance:

Have fun! --A. B. (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That almost makes it too easy. (: I browsed the sitepoint.com search list but I didn't see any familiar domains. Did I miss something? (Requestion 21:50, 14 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Sometimes, taking out the links of someone high profile on these sites has a real multiplier effect in terms of other site-owners seeing the hassles of trying to spam Wikipedia:
Hopefully, this made an impression on others, preventing some new spam. --A. B. (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the NICO Club guy also went around to multiple other forums complaining about our link deletions, which just further spread our message that spamming Wikipedia may be more trouble than it's worth.[55][56][http:// forums.nicoclub.com/zerothread/228363] --A. B. (talk) 00:15, 15 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Trace route

For the many other people taking issue with Requestion's vandalism, there is an example on my talk page of him misinterpreting the results of a trace route to conclude that someone in Egypt was me (I'm in the UK). However, I would strongly advise anyone being victimized to simply give up and walk away. There is neither logic nor honour here, and certainly nothing worth fighting for. Jon Harrop 17:44, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Jon for yet another random comment. For reference see User_talk:Requestion#Jdh30_Warnings. (Requestion 14:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.actividentity.com

I noticed you removed some linkspam from actividentity.com (the page concerned is on my watchlist. Its unusual for linkspam to be added in isolation so I ran a link search on the thing and found a couple of other spammy links that I removed. The prize was this juicy piece of spam which I have put up for a speedy. Just a thought, but if you have time to do the [Special:Linksearch|linksearch]] on any linkspam you remove its amazing how much stuff there is that need to be taken away. Best --Spartaz Humbug! 05:35, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the speedy on ActivIdentity. I think one of those WikiBiz companies created the page. It doesn't sound like you used the *. wildcard with the linksearch. Try it again, do you see anything more? (Requestion 05:50, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I did the use the wildcard but I didn't have time to do the talk pages. Its school run time.. :) By the way, I realise my message was redundant so my apologies for "teaching granny to suck eggs" --Spartaz Humbug! 06:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No problem. Just noticed that you responded to me on the WP:EL rich media and the WT:WPSPAM blogspot threads. Thanks. 23000 blogspot links is crazy. Not sure what to do about the blog and youtube problems. Just need to keep pushing the policy people, maybe the right thing will get done. Time for school? It is time for me to go to sleep! Guess you are on the other side of the planet. Good Morning. (Requestion 06:20, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Adding flags with no rational in talk page

You recently added an external-links flag to Comparison of open source configuration management software. The tag said to see the talk page for more info, but you had entered no description of why exactly the tag was added (or indeed any text at all) to the talk page. I went to your user page, which had a useless poem, which made me thing you were probably a confused 'bot, so I removed the tag, which then promptly got re-added. I then discoved this page, which was much more useful - I guess you are human afterall :-). In any case this is a comparison page, and so has a lot of external links, both to the things being compared (I try to use wikipedia stub links there, but other people have deleted the stubs, such as Bcfg2, as spam, which seems to be a nice little catch-22), and references to assertions made about the features and other attributes of the software. In fact I am planning on adding many more for references to each piece of possibly controversial or dynamic information in the future. Did you see any links that you considered spam or inappropriate? Without knowing what you percieve the problem to be, I do not know what you think would improve the situation. Cheers, Djbclark 06:41, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind, looks like we crossed paths. I just put a response up in the talk page. Djbclark 07:03, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
"Useless poem?" That's not a nice thing to say. Hey, at least I have a user page that isn't red! (: The EL exuberance conversation continues at Talk:Comparison_of_open_source_configuration_management_software#External_links_clean_up. (Requestion 15:34, 20 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.samstoybox.com



My name is Sam Cancilla, I own the website samstoybox.com where I showcase my collection of vintage toys. You have removed every link to my site from Wikipedia claiming that they are all spam. Not sure who made you God but here are my thoughts on the matter. If someone comes to Wikipedia to read about Spirograph, and the page talks of all the different versions of the toy, I'm thinking the user may actually want to see or read more about the Spirograph toys. I have, to my knowledge, the second largest collection of Spirograph toys on the planet. The first largest collection belongs to Peabody the Penguin and is the first External Link on the page. Mr Peabody's collection is indeed impressive and shows pictures and dates for all his copies of the game. My collection page actually describes, in detail where possible, each version of the toy that I own including part number, date, manufacturer and includes pictures of the sets and all accessories. The expansion request discussion for the page asks for "- Photographs of the box, the toy in its box, and the toy in use." I believe the links to Peabody's site and to my site help provide this. Should I instead edit the page to put my entire collection there? Sorry, I don't have that kind of time--I've already created, as a labor of love, my toysite which contains all information I know about the toys I collect.

So let's discuss the other pages that linked to my site: Armatron - I own both versions of Armatron mentioned in the article and have scanned the instructions for the toy. But it is apparently spam to add a link to my collection page. You think I'm doing this to drive customers to my site? I don't sell anything! Go to Google and do a search for Armatron, my collection page is the first search result, as it should be--it is the only page on the web devoted to the Armatron robot arm.

Battling Tops - My collection includes the rare green board and the 1977 reissued Battling Spaceships games but folks wouldn't want to see any of these things, links to my page must be spam. Vertibird - coolest toy ever made. Clones of the toy were made by many, many companies and I own most of those clones and display them on my site - dates, part numbers, etc. I put a link to my toysite on the "Marvin Glass and Associates" page, a page that lists the names of all the cool toys that this firm created. I own 15 of these toys and have created pages displaying pictures of and describing the toys. How is it spam to link to this resource. Don't you think folks might be interested in actually seeing these toys and reliving their youth.

I can go on and on about the links you've deleted and why they should be there. If the page in Wikipedia lists 50 games made by Ideal and I have pages displaying 20 of them, with pictures, information, free scans of the instructions, who are you to say that a link to my site is spam. Please undo the deletions of all my links, they serve a useful purpose and are not spam. Sam Cancilla, user sfcanci, sam@samstoybox.com. unsigned comment by User:Sfcanci 15:57, 23 April 2007

Hello Sam. I'm sorry but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory. Do you have any idea how many external links you added to Wikipedia? (Requestion 00:46, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Regarding the "linkspam", at least as it appears on Armatron -- regardless of whether it's linkspam, it a) provides quite a lot of background info that isn't in the article and b) isn't actually promoting anything. Methinks you have a rather mechanical definition of linkspam, and as someone with no interest whatsoever in Sam's website I'd prefer to see the link readded, at least to the Armatron article. Haikupoet 03:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
25 samstoybox.com external links have been added to Wikipedia. How many links do you think Sam should be allowed to add? That Armatron scan of the instruction manual appears to be a copyright violation. WP:EL states that sites that violate copyright should not be linked. We also have WP:SPAM and a WP:COI issues. I'd prefer that the WP:RULES not be violated. (Requestion 05:05, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
How do you know Sam added all of them to begin with? In fact I think I might have added the Armatron link myself while logged out, though that would be rather hard to prove. As for rules, don't forget WP:IAR -- being a stickler for the rules for the sake of being a stickler tends to be frowned upon here. Sam's site provides background material on the subject, and seems to me to be as good a source as you're going to find on such toys on the Web. As far as whether 25 links is spam, well, I don't recall Wikipedia being subject to an equivalent of the Breidbart index. I'd say the quality of information is rather more important than who posted it, all other things being equal. Haikupoet 05:36, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Someone from Albuquerque added those external links which is far more information than is required. I don't think you understand WP:IAR. It doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. Please see Wikipedia:Use common sense which says "the spirit of the rules is more important than the letter." The mass spamming of samstoybox.com is a clear violation of the spirit of WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. Sam also violated WP:CIVIL here [57]. If Sam wants to contribute to Wikipedia then he should think about uploading pictures and adding content to the articles. Sorry but external links do not qualify as content. (Requestion 19:00, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Klutus' Warning

Please stop removing appropriate external links from Wikipedia. It is considered vandalism and wikipedia is not a vehicle for your person truths or promotion. If you continue destroying valuable content, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This above warning was added because this user not only did change articles to his own home made "truth" but also for removing adequate and relevant links to other sources of information outside the wikipedia. - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 19:54, 24 April 2007)

Hello Klutus. My "personal truths or promotion?" What are you talking about? Did you make that warning tag up? I like it! (: Please stop adding external links for your amazingports.com website. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory and it is not meant to be used for advertising purposes. I see that you had an Obsid article that was deleted because of blatant advertising reasons. Currently I notice some WP:NOTABILITY problems over at Service oriented provisining. I hope that isn't going to turn into a WP:COI problem too. (Requestion 20:50, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Klutus: I added an entry that might solve the problem Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#Not_forgetting_the_purpose_of_anti_spam - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 21:41, 24 April 2007)
Klutus: Not all articles are good, that we can agree up-on. Never the less, the fact that YOU tag article in one way or the other has little to do with its actual value, it looks more like you have decided that I'm a bad person and independently of what I do - you try to find something to attack - not very constructive, and I'm beginning to wonder about the reasons. - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 21:54, 24 April 2007)
OK, this conversation has moved over to WT:WPSPAM. I changed this thread title to something more descriptive. You can't just call it "Warning" it needs to have some sort of context. Also please learn to indent ":" and sign your posts with (~~~~). (Requestion 22:07, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Special:Linksearch/*.amazingports.com

whois amazingports.com
.
Jan Eldenmalm (jan@eldenmalm.com)  
Fax: 
9 Sheridan Buildings
NA,  
US

whois eldenmalm.com
.
Jan Eldenmalm (klutus1@yahoo.com)
Fax: ##########
Stockholm, STOCKHOLM SE-114 24
SE


Klutus: Yes I have added many external links (not just these once) to companies across the WiFi sector as the sector is new and generally hard to penetrate for the average reader - also I have tried to create balance on pages that are very biased towards one way of thinking.

Unless you have good reason for removing links (which don't seem to be the case) - I suggest you calm down and read my suggestion on how to solve this issue more generally ( see warning above ) - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 21:41, 24 April 2007)

Hello Klutus1, I mean Jan Eldenmalm. A Google search shows that you are the CEO of the amazingports.com company. Hmmm, that does pose a serious WP:COI. Now please stop spamming Wikipedia with your amazingports.com external links! (Requestion 22:17, 24 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Klutus: I can't seem to get the deleted article (please tell me how if you know) - The article was about fashion (not my main subject). What I was trying to describe was the fact that the cyclical "nature" of fashion creates lots of frustration as most people don't "fit" the "current" fashion more than occasionally every 2-3 years. I tried to use a company as an example of this (yes I have affiliations with it, that is how this problem was brought to my attention). When I wrote this article it was still a fairly new concept and my writing was terrible ( that was why I never pursued it). Currently (if you take interest in fashion) will know that several other attempts to solve this issue have been made, also the trend has now been described in several "independent" sources (all external to Wikipedia). The reason I wanted to write about it was that the movement is disruptive and will change the way people perceive the fashion industry 5 to 10 years from now. You will also notice the same effect in other cyclically oriented market verticals. Maybe you could help me actually get this article written as you seem to be an excellent internet researcher.
If there is anything else I can help you clarify in your "case file" please let me know. - unsigned comment by (User:Klutus 01:17, 25 April 2007
You can't see the deleted file because it was deleted. Only an admin has the ability to see it. Can you please learn how to indent and sign your posts? (Requestion 01:24, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Now I learned... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Klutus (talk • contribs) 01:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Klutus: Found some external links that can be part of your article about AmazingPorts:
htt p: // www.intel.com /cd/corporate/pressroom/emea/deu/102279.htm
htt p: // findarticles.com /p/articles/mi_zdzcz/is_200312/ai_ziff113943
htt p: // www.jupiterevents.com /80211/fall03/agenda3.html
htt p: // www.student.nada.kth.se /~x00_jcb/FinalReport.pdf
(I didn't link any so it's not spam)
--Klutus 02:37, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for not making those active links, and thank you for learning how to indent and sign you posts. I appreciate it. Unfortunately I'm not interested in creating an AmazingPorts article. Things will be cool between us if you can just stop adding that amazingports.com link. (Requestion 02:57, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Things will be "cool between" us when you stop destroying other peoples, serious attempts to achieve improvements. As your talk page here displays, on a number of occasions you have destroyed perfectly viable articles and link adding (and even excused your self for it). This page displays only "complaints", indicating that by now you have destroyed a large number of perfectly viable articles, given that most people will not complain. You have to understand that new articles and links to external sources are key parts parts of an evolving knowledge base, fundamentals of the wikipedia (you your self added the notability tag) - which basically asks for links to external verifiable resources. I Also noticed that you do have a real warning hanging around the admin pages - you should take these hints seriously. --Klutus 09:50, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Klutus, you need to get a clue. I'm a spam fighter and WT:WPSPAM is my home base. It is kind of funny that you posted your Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Not_forgetting_the_purpose_of_anti_spam complaint there. Please listen to what those people are saying. Wikipedia has a lot of rules and if you want a happy existence on Wikipedia then you will need to learn to follow them. (Requestion 14:59, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Urod strikes again

Hello. I happened to stumble across this complaint by Urod about me, presumably in regard to this. It all seems pretty harmless; I just thought it was interesting as I find his psychology is quite curious. Xerxesnine 00:22, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can't believe he wants to get arbitration involved with that pointless book link. Unbelievable. I thought he got over that. At one point during the User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Link_vandalism_farm_deleted dispute Urod thought Femto and I were socks. The village pump and Afd links are embedded in my talk page link, check out Urod's archived talk page too. Lot of interesting historical information. That AfD got a little crazy.
Urod has a Russian wiki page here http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Urod and I think they have different WP:RULES there so that could be part of the problem. Urod's home page used to have an odd drug reference [65] so I checked out Urod's contribution log and it had a number of drug and mental illness edits. Not sure if it means anything but it could explain Urod's wild and defiant behavior. User:AnAccount2 is also an unusual character, not sure the connection but they are probably friends on the Russian wiki. I'm just happy that those two aren't bugging me anymore. Let me know if the ANI goes anywhere and if you need any help. Maybe I should step in as an arbitrator? (Requestion 01:28, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Oh my gosh! I just noticed this. Is that what you were talking about, or the "incident" complaint? Xerxesnine 01:52, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was referring to Wikipedia:Association of Members' Advocates/Requests/February 2007/Urod 2. ArbCom is really busy and they don't have time to deal with pointless issues like this. If you don't mind I'm going to chime in on Urod's latest AMA request. Not sure yet what I'll say but my intent is to attempt to difuse the situation, somehow. (Requestion 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wow, the external link is just 1 of 4 complaints. The others are "unending insults", sock-puppet accusations, and "psychological pressure" causing users to leave WP. That's one full AMA request! Xerxesnine 02:00, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've tried to understand Urod but I just can't figure him out. He is not a spammer in the typical sense. The links he adds are not his, I don't see the financial connection, and I don't see any personal connection. The only thing that is a constant is that he seems to provoke conflict for some unknown reason. It is like Urod is trying to make a WP:POINT and I have no idea what that point is. My advice is to be as polite as is possible and just let this ridiculous AMA case fade away. (Requestion 03:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Obsid

Per your content review request, the only non-deletion-related revision was:

  • 21:10, 14 March 2007 . . Klutus (←Created page with 'OBSID - an attempt to improve diversity of choice in a market heading for unity of choice and thought at express speed. ---- Obsid have, unlike most fashion retaile...')

Feel free to blank this message after reading it. Femto 11:40, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Femto. I commented it out. Not sure what Klutus was up to. Were there any external links in that Obsid article? BTW, have you seen User_talk:Requestion#Urod_strikes_again? Part of me wants to step in and help arbitrate but the other part wants to stay far far away. (Requestion 15:06, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Nothing else, it's the whole page quoted byte-for-byte. - Yeah though so far I was fortunate enough not having to look deeper into the C++ side of Urod's "problem". I for one am not even remotely the type who would consider voluntarily joining an arbitration. If you do, my respect. Or my deepest pity. Take your pick. :) Femto 16:16, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No EL's, hmmm, thanks again for checking. Have you seen Talk:C++#appropriateness_of_external_link? The whole conflict over freecomputerbooks.com is crazy and it makes zero sense. When a worthless link generates this much heat then something is going on. I just haven't figured it out yet, or it could just be Urod being Urod. It seems like there is some serious canvassing going on and I believe most of those WP:SOCK claims are in fact WP:MEAT. I want to stay away but the mystery aspect is drawing me in. (Requestion 16:41, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Mystery + WP:MEAT = WP:SPAM (Requestion 19:32, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]



You've been busy. I noticed that links to www.dataq.com have been removed just about everywhere. I understand, or at least THOUGHT I understood what Spam was until this event. Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the purpose of Wikipedia to advanced the body of thought on any given article? If so, does that effort need to be solely contained within a Wikipedia url? The links you removed were intended to advance the understanding of the page to which they were applied. In all cases the pages of such links were either completely devoid of commercial content, or any such content was transient in reference. In fact several have been published in reputable trade journals who exercise strict editorial guidelines that limit commercial content.

So I can better understand your position, lets start with the shunt (electrical) article. If you have experience using current shunts you know that the risk of explosion and fire is high if these devices are applied to an inappropirate instrument, a mistake that many of our customers have experienced first-hand. http://www.dataq.com/applicat/articles/isolation.htm This application note describes the hows and whys of this error without ANY commerical content except that it happens to appear on a commerical site. It's my belief that such information is curcial to anyone who's considering a current shunt to make current measurements. If you agree, then why was the link removed as spam? Rwl10267 17:23, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I have been busy, thank you for noticing. I see that you folk over at Dataq Instruments in Akron Ohio have been busy too. 21 dataq.com linkspams, very impressive! (: Dataq received their first warning in August 2004 here [66]. Note that I am not the only editor who has deleted dataq.com external links. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory and it is not a place for inserting advertising links. (Requestion 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Will you answer the question, please? Why is the page referenced in my post considered spam? I note also that there isn't any self-respecting company who hasn't tried to be linked through Wiki and been denied. Please don't hold that against me. We haven't violated any recent guidelines regarding spam based upon my understanding of the definition. That's why I'd like your comment to the original question.Rwl10267 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPAM. I added a courtesy message on your talk page, please read it and the links in it. If you disagree with me then you are free to start adding external links again. (Requestion 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This conversation has moved to the Talk:Shunt_(electrical)#Measurements_using_current_shunts page. (Requestion 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

diycalculator.com



That's the first time anyone's pointed out WP:SPAM#Source_soliciting to me. I think it's a bit much removing his requests. I think it's better to just point out in the talk page as a response to why the link is not appropriate. --Ronz 20:38, 27 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that deleting them all is a little harsh. Check out my comment about talkspam I made to Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Apr#An_essay_to_scrutinize. He clearly spammed the talk pages with a blanket message. And then he used a different sock a couple weeks later to add some diycalculator.com links, I deleted those. I don't know what to make of anonymous spam fighter User_talk:69.72.2.72's actions. (Requestion 21:42, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

External links - spam - BPMN




With all respect, but why are some external links treated as spam (like bpmn.itposter.net, which contains useful reference card, which has over 100 downloads a day), and others not (like www.businessmodelingforum.com, which contains nothing more than other links, nothing original). Best regards,

Tomi —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 90.157.150.126 (talk) 17:41, 28 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hello Tomi. Please see WP:SPAM#Inclusion_of_one_spam_link_is_not_a_reason_to_include_another. I have added a {{cleanup-spam}} tag to the Business Process Modeling Notation article. If you think the businessmodelingforum.com external link is spam then please delete it. Thank you. (Requestion 21:11, 28 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I understand that. Anyway, I don't agree with that you've tagged bpmn.itposter.net as spam. Can you tell me the reason for doing that? (except that it is external link) - unsigned comment by (User:Tomiroz 06:54, 29 April 2007)
The reasons were due to the promotional nature in which it was added, who added it, the WP:COI, and that we've had a spam problem with the Business Process Modeling Notation article. Please see WP:SPAM for more information. (Requestion 16:04, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

User:Artipol's spam reversion

Logging into Wikipedia this morning I see you have made a vitriolic attack against me on my talk page. I'm not even sure what you are accusing me of doing? I noticed someone had vandalized the List of emulators page by removing a lot of useful links, I reverted this. "An editor spent a lot of time cleaning up the links on that page." Looks more like simple vandalism to me. Maybe some of the deleted links had gone dead, I don't know? but they certainly were not all dead. A clear case of removing useful content from Wikipedia. The talk page blanking at the Arcadia 2001 page was approved by an admin to remove a libellous personal attack, which of course exposes Wikipedia to legal liability. The page at Wikipedia:Libel clearly states: "It is Wikipedia policy to delete libellous material when it has been identified." I take offence at the suggestion there was any deception involved. The removal of Darkstar's comment at Talk:List of emulators has been OK'd by him. There is indeed a certain person in New Zealand who has repeatedly vandalized certain pages and written libellous nonsense into talk pages, I have already pointed this out to admins, nothing seems to have been done about it though. I have records of the IP addresses he has used, also his full name and address. Artipol 02:55, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any record that supports what you just said. All I saw was a mediated dispute, a bunch of suspicious blanking activity, and some spamming. So I asked what was going on. To be honest the only thing I really care about is the re-spamming revert [67] that you did to the List of emulators article. Are you aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory? And the de-spamming of that article was not vandalism. I am giving you an option to clean up and remove the external links in the List of emulators article. (Requestion 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure what your problem is with that page? Yes, it contains external links, has always contained external links, and will continue to contain external links. Without such links the page would obviously be quite useless. I think you are confusing "external link" with "spam", the two things have nothing to do with each other. All the links that I have tried on that page lead to bona fide emulator homepages, you seem to be implying they all lead to some kind of non-relevant sites? If so, which links? Artipol 06:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The List of emulators article will not "continue to contain external links." You are misinformed about Wikipedia policy. External links are not valuable content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link farm. Please read WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. Thank you. (Requestion 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, delete the entire article, as that is entirely the point of that article. Clearly many people do find it useful, no one else seems to have a problem with it except you. Of course, doing so will reduce the usefulness of Wikipedia, but you obviously don't care about that, it seems clear you would rather ruin Wikipedia than apply common sense. Eg. see WP:Use_common_sense. You're wrong to say they are spam links, you are wilfully using incorrect terminology. Not one of those links is spam. This may be news to you, but there are other sites which have useful resources, not just Wikipedia. Artipol 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link farm and that is policy. (Requestion 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

workforall.net linkspam



Noticed you were cleaning up workforall.net on several taxation articles. Some of which had them as references and one of which had a footnote. How did you determine that this was not being used appropriately, particularly in the case of the footnote, which seemed to contain relevant information for the statement? Morphh (talk) 13:37, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

After looking at your edits, I can now see why you cleaned them up. They were everywhere... I'll take a look at the footnote reference - if found to appropriate, do you have any objection to adding it back in? Morphh (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
144 workforall.net linkspams and User:81.242.58.154 just added another one today. Huge blocks of text with links have been copied and pasted into multiple Wikipedia articles (see the "paste dup text" note above). This mass insertion of duplicate text back in the summer 2006 has propagated into a mess. I've tried to clean it up as well as I could but a Tax article expert needs to do some double checking. Here are some examples of the duplicate text to watch out for: [68] pasted four times, [69] pasted eight times, [70] pasted seven times. The links have even worked their way into citations and references. The workforall.net spamming is one of the most intertwined cases I've encountered. Blacklisting will be requested. (Requestion 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
All of the above IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium. Today the active User:80.201.26.155 added a couple more paste dup spams and the situation has now evolved into the pasting of duplicate text into talk pages. Tomorrow it will probably be a different dynamic IP address. See the User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction for more information. (Requestion 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The final warning was violated with this [71] edit. (Requestion 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
New special purpose User:Bully-Buster-007 account with a harassment campaign agenda. Great. (Requestion 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Hi, I left you a question at Talk:Economic data. Can you please respond there? Cheers, --Ioannes Pragensis 16:48, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I just did. More workforall.net fallout. (Requestion 19:52, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction

For context of this rambling diatribe see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#workforall.net.

Particularly the valuable contributions of WorkForAll.

http: //workforall.net/ is a serious and leading think-tank in Brussels. Their contributions provide information on a great number of socio-economic subjects, some of which have indeed political sensitive implications conflicting with mainstream economic thought. The information they provide is high quality, well researched and well documented, and their posts were a positive contribution to Wikipedia's quality and pluralism.

One or two of their posts would indeed better suite under a different subject. However the indiscriminate mass destruction for this sole reason of all the valuable information they provided has destroyed lots of highly valuable subjects.

Such hasty random destruction without thorough investigation is causing much collateral damage and looks more like vandalism than it helps to fight spam. Such hit-or-miss random destruction in a couple of minutes has the ultimate effect of lowering the overall quality of Wikipedia.

The last thing the Wikipedia community needs is censureship. Wikipedia does not need censors from big media to validate the quality of information. The visitors of Wikipedia are competent enough to evaluate the quality of information provided. Once big media censors take over it will be the end of the unique Wikipedia concept. - unsigned comment by User:80.201.26.155 11:36, 1 May 2007)

The last thing Wikipedia needs is to have large sections of duplicate text copied and pasted into multiple articles. This goes for talk space too. You pasted the above comment into 5 different places [72] [73] [74] [75] [76], once is sufficient. I am a surgical spam fighter, there was no "such hit-or-miss random destruction", and the collateral damage has been minimized. I did my best effort to remove all the blocks of duplicate text that you've added during the past year. Unfortunately this intertwined mess of duplicate text has propagated and morphed into different sections over time. Complete clean up could take years. Note that I delete big media linkspam too, so just because you're the underdog doesn't give you any more right to spam Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPAM for some helpful information. (Requestion 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If your spam fight is surgical as you pretend, you must have an answer as what concrete Wikipedia rule was not respected at the link added under Talk:Economic_data. The information linked to the most comprehensive economic data source on the internet. By vandalising this post you are witholding the Wikipedia community easy access to worldwide data sources. In the future please take the effort to find a better or more comprehensive site before you destroy the information.
I still miss your answer as to what contributed more to the Wikipedia' quality: providing the link or destroying it ? Please stop your the mass destruction of valuable information under the pretext of spam. Let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves decide what is valuable information and what is not. Each link you destroy is one more option you steal from Wikipedia users.
I only see that many users have already complained about your indiscriminate techniques. Please stop them, as they are doing the quality of Wikipedia no good. - unsigned comment by User:80.201.26.155 (16:56, 1 May 2007)
Check the log for the Economic data page. I didn't didn't delete your recent link addition, someone else did. (Requestion 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The problem is you still use carpet bombing techniques to fight guerillia. It didn't work in Vietnam, it wont work against spam either. Your recent removal of all the post provided by Workforall for one single supposed (and discussed) abuse removed very valuable as well. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.201.26.155 (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Please stop carpet bombing my talk page with the repeated pasting of duplicate text. It is almost impossible for me to reply to your questions when you do this. Also new comments get added at the bottom and remember to sign your posts with a (~~~~) tag. (Requestion 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I conclude from Your remark "I didn't didn't delete your recent link addition, someone else did." that you finally agree that this deletion was illigitimate and that at least part of the Workforall postings contain valuable information and should be reverted.
Please let us know how and on which place we can finish this time consuming discussion on a sensable way. It is not my intention to spam. I hope it is not your intention to vandalise.' - signed User:80.201.26.155
I did not imply any sort of legitimacy of the workforall.net external link or your mass duplicative text pasting. I was simply stating a fact that someone else deleted your most recent edit and that your rage is completely misguided. About continuing this conversation, my talk page is a busy place I suggest User talk:80.201.26.155 or Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link, your choice. (Requestion 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please note that http: //workforall.net has no commercial intentions whatsowever, so we have no interest in spamming. We are a think-tank that provides information (raw data as well as analysis) on a great number of socio-economic subjects.
All we want is to give Wikipedia readers easy access to this well doccumented information, wich may not allways is not mainstream economic thought. So please advise me how to do this without offending "spam" wachers.
please enlight me in these concrete cases :
1. Do you consider a link as below approprioate under the subject "ECONOMIC DATA" ?.
2. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "DATA" ?
3. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "STATISTICS" ?
4. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "REGRESSION ANALYSIS" ?
==Data Sources==
* META STATISTICS PORTAL. Survey to comparative international socio-economic Data. This data portal of The Brussels Free Institute for Economic Research provides convenient access to data sources around the Globe. The portal gives handy surveys of data provided by the OECD, Eurostat, the Groningen Development Centre, the Economics Web Institute, the Pacific Exchange Rate Service, as well as all major U.S. Economic Data Sources: USDL, USDA, Census Bureau, White House, the Penn World Tables etc. --217.136.93.7 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your 4 questions is that the link is not appropriate and it is considering spamming to add it to those articles. It is also considered spamming to copy and paste that paragraph of text into multiple articles like you did here [77] [78] [79] [80] [81] [82] [83] [84] [85] [86]. The exact same text pasted 10 times!? That is just completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (Requestion 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I now see that someone of our staff has indeed been a bit overenthousiastic in repeating the link where it not very relevant. We are very sorry about that and we make sure this wont happen anymore. But you can't be serious about banning the link completely even under the titles DATA and ECONOMIC DATA. A third independant party Ioannes Pragensis (User:Ioannes_Pragensis) expliclitely approved the link in the debate on Talk:Economic_data and expressed the very usefullness under the title "economic data". Banning the link everewhere as You propose has degenerated in spam fundamentalism which is doing more bad than good, and where all common sense has gone. As I understand it the purpose of spam fight, blocking and banning is NOT to punish offenders who may have done this by ignorance of wikipedia rules but to avoid further spam and to make Wikipedia better. Banning the link under "Economic Data" is not making Wikipedia better but worse.
1. I repeat my suggestion to find a better or more comprehensive data survey before you blank the information. It took our staff 2 months to find this amount data from sources dispersed all over the net, and to organise all the information in an easy to use and 100% free survey. The Data portal http://workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html is simply a unique and free service and source of information for anyone in search for economic data. You deny Wikipedia visitors al least 30.000US$ worth of research and knowledge by banning this link.
2. I repeat my question as to which precise rule on WP:EL or WP:SPAM this link would break if repeated under the titles DATA and ECONOMIC DATA.
Please reconsider. Cheers --217.136.93.7 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two quotes that should answer your question about which precise rules were broken. WP:EL says "there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Next, WP:SPAM says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."(Requestion 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please note WP:EL also says "What to link: There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is it accessible to the reader? Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means."
Is http://workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html not useful, tasteful, informative, factual ?
Have You already found a better link offering the same mount of service and information ?
If it pleases You we gladly admit we did not kwow all the WP rules when posting, and are sorry about errors made.
But please reconsider and take in consideration spam fight should not make Wikipedia worse but better.
If not, spam figt degenerates in spam fundamentalism. cheers... --217.136.93.7 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By adding external links you are attempting to promote your own website / organization. This is a major conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI which says to avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)." (Requestion 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The rule You cite above is not absolute and is irrelevant in this case. The rule clearly states "avoid". It does not state "are forbidden". If it would have stated "forbiddden" this rule would indeed provide the justification for banning every single link in Wikipedia, without which WP would loose its attractiveness and usefullness and fast become irrellevant. WP:EL cannot be more explicit, precise and absolute in the justification for adding a link such as http: //workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html under the question: "What to link: you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."'
By blanking this link You are indeed denying Wikipedia users easy access to valuable information. You failed to produce a more comprehensive data portal before deleting this one as we now suggested three times. Blanking without providing an alternative goes well beyond the purpose of spam fighting, as it decreases the the quality of Wikipedia rather than increasing it. This is spam fundmentalism of the worst kind which it is doing WP far more bad than good.
Is it so difficult to admit that mass blanking techniques are as inapropriate to fight spam as carpet bombing is to fight terrorism? Don't you realise the amount of collateral dammage mass blanking is inflicting? Spam fundamentalism is indeed far more destructive than spam itself: every Wikipedia user is just one click away from deciding a link is spam, whereas he might never find, or it might take him years to find the information spam fundamentalists destroy every day. Everey reasonable doctor stops the medication when he sees the cure is worse than the illness.
We ask You a last time to reconsider and direct Your efforts to real spam; irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defines spam. Therefor use precision techniques, not weapons of mass destruction. There is still plenty of constructive work to do. --217.136.93.7 12:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requestion blanked reasonable arguments above without justification. Are You insisiting on mediation ? --217.136.93.7 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't blank any of your text. I did deactivate some of your workforall.net links. I'm a spam fighter and I can't have lots of active external links on my talk page. I don't want the spammers calling me a spammer now do I? If you think mediation will help then go for it. You should remember that I am not the only editor or the most recent editor who had to delete your linkspam. (Requestion 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I reverted you edit. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments as you did here, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.--Hu12 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hu12. (Requestion 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
At the moment I wrote the complaint about the removal of my reply, the arguments were indeed deleted, which is bad practice Hu12 confirms, whoever did it. So I had to revert it, and am glad the arguments are now left unaltered.
I see that Requestion does not further object to the statements therein, and now accepts that
1. The link to the data portal was appropriate as to WP rules, that its blanking was therefor illigitimate, and can be considered as a clear case of vandalism such as defined on WP:VAND. I assume this accounts for warning as to WP habits to stop further vandalism in similar cases. Please contradict me if I am wrong.
2. that spam fundamentalism using indiscriminate mass blanking is far more destructive than spam itself and the remedies used by Requestion being worse than the illness, common sense obliges to stop such indiscriminate practices. — 80.201.19.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There is no consensus for adding your links. Any contribution for which there is no consensus, unless elsewise required by the accepted policies and guidelines, may be reverted until consensus can be established otherwise. So far, to put it mildly, rough consensus seems to be that the information you want to add should not be included. This is a perfectly legitimate part of Wikipedia's editing procedure and not vandalism, so kindly stop canvassing against this user. Femto 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to ad new info, but revert a ligitimate link (see above) which was vandalised. (see : WP:VAND Types of vandalism: Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.)
--80.201.19.94 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the diff. Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking about. (Requestion 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You guys do not even seem to understand the basic logic behind WP procedures. Adding is about making a totally new, unverified and untested information. It is logic for such unverified additions consensus should be obtained. Reverting a is about undoing illecit vandalism to well established information which was read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP Readers, and which should not have been deleted without consensus in the first place. --87.64.93.128 11:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [removed bolding of entire paragraph Femto 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Another Belgian IP. I wonder who that is. Femto 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we neighbours ? WVL. --87.64.93.128 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part about "replacing entire established pages with one's own version" does not mean what you appear to think it does. Let's play along though: The established version was this one. Then this copy-and-pasted piece of spam was added, and Requestion reverted it providing proper explanation as defined by the policy that you cite. An IP replaced it with its own version again without consensus. So you say by your definition you vandalized. Okay, I'm fine with that. Femto 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to this precise of the case under "Economic Data" please tell me why You oppose to its content. The information therin is relevant and verifiable, and the external link is fully compatible with WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."' I thout there was consensus by now about the value of theis link.
The note above was rather refering to all the other well established information Requesion removed without gaining consent. see : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#workforall.net
I allready indicated I shall gladly consent to removal of the links where they are found unappropriate. I'll defend them wher they are approproate. The point of the wole discussion is in the title : Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction. His mass blanking techniques are as inapropriate to fight spam as carpet bombing is to fight terrorism. Don't you realise the amount of collateral dammage his mass blanking is inflicting? Spam fundamentalism is indeed far more destructive than spam itself. --87.64.93.128 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again, the comments at that WT:WPSPAM #workforall.net link above actually implies consensus. Another important point is that no other editors have added your links and text back. Heck, you haven't even tried to revert it back. That's consensus multiplied times 3. (Requestion 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually when you add in Femto and Hu12's comments here, it is consensus times 4! (Requestion 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
please dont misunderstand me putting femto's message in the correct order as endorsing its content.
please do not misunderstand me not wanting to start an edit war at this point as a consent with your vandalism.
to make my position quite clear i explicitely express my oppostion to all your vandalism such as defined in WP:VAND Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. by this statement . --87.64.93.128 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added another workforall.net link today [87] and a completely independent editor deleted it [88] with the comment of "rv link spam." Then yet a different editor gave you a spam1 warning [89] for that edit. I suppose you'll just chalk this up as more vandals conspiring against you? (Requestion 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
First accusing me of consenting for not reverting your blanking, and then accusing me of spam for revering is not very logical. By the way: this spam1 warning looks to me very much as one of these computer-generated messages that was misfired by accident: Ioannes Pragensis first found the Link very appropriate and usefull, and now he blanks it. Strange logic your automated messages are following. see : Talk:Economic_data By the way: You did not yet answer my question what the consensus implied. --87.64.93.128 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it is called "deleting" an external link or comment, "blanking" is something completely different. Second, Ioannes Pragensis only gave you the spam1 warning, someone else reverted your edit. Thirdly, those are not automated messages. Finally, to answer your question, the consensus is that your interpretations of the WP:RULES are very very wrong. (Requestion 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is there much interpretation possible in WP:EL instructions "What to link": when it says you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.. Can the rule be more explicit, precise and concrete and affirmative than what it says ? - unsigned comment by (User:87.64.93.128 22:56, 6 May 2007)
Can you stop quoting "then link, by all means" since it doesn't say that. Another mistake you are making is ignoring all the other things WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM say. Even if WP:EL said what you think it says, you are not allowed to ignore everything else. (Requestion 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Can you Stop interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should avoid linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more precise [WP:EL]instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, concrete and affirmative in inviting users to link in a case a source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article?
Can you Stop assuming bad faith every time users link to a reliable source. Can you stop assuming their intend is to promote a site when all they want is to provide relevant information? Can you please start to assume good faith such as WP policy tells you to?
Can you please stop your link-spam fundamentalism and start to use common sence? Links are most valuable tools for users in their search for information. If it is your intent to improve WP then stop your mass destruction, and use precision tools to destroy the guenine spam we all despise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.150.59 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The answer is no to all 3 of your requests. I'd also like to point out that WP:AGF says "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (Requestion 08:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is that a final decision on which You reflected well? --81.240.150.59 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your requests only apply to you and the answer is still no. Sorry but you ran out of good faith a long time ago. (Requestion 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Your answer above is not very clear. Please be precise and specify your position on our 3 questions under the 4 cases below: (9 answers please):
Question 1 : Are You prepared to stop interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should avoid linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more precise [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, concrete and affirmative in inviting users to link in a case a source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article?
1.1. - as a general principle for users in general .
1.2 - as to the 5 cases described in User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
1.3 - as to the submissions we made
1.4 - Does your position under 1.3 apply for all our submissions our ar You willing to consider some cases; if yes which ones ??.
Question 2 : Are you willing to stop assuming bad faith every time users link to a reliable source. Can you stop assuming their intend is to promote a site when all they want is to provide relevant information? Can you please start to assume good faith such as WP policy tells you to?
2.1. - as a general principle for users in general .
2.2 - as to the 5 cases described in User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
2.3 - as to the submissions we made
2.4 - Does your position under 2.3 apply for all our submissions our ar You willing to consider some cases. if yes which ones ??.
Question 3. Are You willing to reconsider your link-spam fundamentalism and start to use common sence?
--Bully-Buster-007 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not answering your questions. Go away. (Requestion 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

LEVEL 1 INTIMIDATION WARNING This is a first degree formal warning out of a set of 3 levels.

Your qualified refusal to reach Wikipedia:Consensus in this dispute after numerous propositions of your opponant to come to a reasonable settlement is incompatible with Wikipedia:5_Pillars and Wikipedia:Etiquette. You fail to provide adequate evidence for the qualifications "spam" in your accusations of at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Requestion#workforall.net_linkspam. Spreading unmotivated of disputable accusations can be considered as spam and can seriously harm the interests, reputation and privacy of other users. Deliberate attempts to harm the interests, reputation or privacy of other users is both a criminal offence and is incompatible with Wikipedia:5_Pillars and Wikipedia:Etiquette. In order to interrupt the escalating and ongoing damage allready done You are kindly requested to remove the inappropriate and disputed comments and accusations within 24 hours there and on the all locations You might have illecitely posted them, as well as to revert all blankings for which you failed gain Wikipedia:Consensus. In order to keep the discussion together you are kindy invited to participate in discussion at the appropriate location where the discussion is still in progress. Please try to reach Wikipedia:Consensus there. Please do keep to Wikipedia:Etiquette there as well. --Bully-Buster-007 13:11, 9 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


OK, that is the second time you've falsely accused me of deleting your comments. Show me the diff. Also please stop claiming that I accept your point of view. I don't agree with you. Nope, not vandalism. You are interpreting WP:VAND incorrectly. (Requestion 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion over removed parts of the debate is closed. Maybe it was User:Hu12 who accidently removed it. It was restored an that is good enough for me.
Please keep to the point. Please give precise arguments why you disagree about me calling your action vandalism. The definition of vandalism is clear and precise: see WP:VAND Types of vandalism : Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.
In the meantime please stop all vandalism, accusations and calls for blacklisting on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#workforall.net till concensus is reached.
Please also stop cyberbullying newcomers with most vague references to regulations which are not applicable. Please in future be precise with referring to regulations. You are chasing bona fide contributers away. Or is that the intention of your action ? ( see: Bullying
--80.201.19.94 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:CONSENSUS has already been reached. You also aren't a newcomer, you've been editing Wikipedia since October 2005 [90]. (Requestion 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am not pleading for reasonable conduct only for our own sake, but on behalf of the hundreds of bona fide newcomers whose contibutions were vandalised on basis of the wrong assumption external links are per definition wrong and which were scared away by ciberbullying. --87.64.93.128 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. At this point you are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.--Hu12 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the concensus imply? Let us be precise and not not rush to vague conclusions at a point where the debate becomes really interesting for providing a few precise guidelines for the conduct of overenthousiastic spammers as well as overenthousiastic spam fighters.
Let us summerise a few undisputed conclusions so far:
- Users are encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia.
- External links are VERY welcome when the content of an external source is relevant and reliable but is too long and cannot be summarized in an article.
- In a case of doubt it is preferable NOT to remove an external links as blanking a suspected spam could be far more destructive than spam itself. Users are indeed just one click away from deciding a link is spam, whereas it might take them years to find the link to the information destroyed.
- Blanking all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus is vandalism.
- Removal of spam should be precison work.
- Cyber bullying newcomers is impoper conduct
-Please correct me where I am wrong. --87.64.93.128 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was recently a victim of an anti-spam attack by Requestion. I thought I’d chime in on this topic for whatever it’s worth. I state up front that I don’t hold any particular malice toward Requestion for his or her actions toward me, and I freely and openly admit that I deliberately spammed my website on Wiki several years ago in a self defense mechanism, since many of my competitors were doing the same. Now that SEs apply the nofollow tag this action by me is no longer necessary and hasn’t been for some time.
However, the fact remains that the market my business addresses is thinly traveled and there are gaping holes in much Wiki content that applies to it. Much of the information missing in Wiki is treated in detail in application notes on our website, which assume a general tone of unbiased information with minimal or absolutely no commercial content except that they appear on a commercial site. Over the last several months I have placed a handful of links to appropriate places on our website to help full in these blanks. Some Wiki editors have removed a few because they didn’t believe they were germane. The balance was removed by Requestion as outright spam. In the former case, I disagree with the narrow interpretation but I’m willing to let the hole in Wiki content remain unfilled. Even when the content is considered spam because of a tangential product reference I’m willing to let it go. However, when a link contains absolutely no commercial content, fits perfectly with the Wiki Article, fills in blanks not covered there, survived several spam sweeps for many months, and is then removed under the pretense of spam, I begin to wonder what’s going on. Content in one of these links was crucial to prevent explosive destruction of instruments and outright personal injury, which I have actually seen first hand. Requestion, sighting Wiki spam policy, claims that the link was self-serving since I linked to my own company’s website. In one hour I could find a dozen customers who would be willing to link to it instead. Are those links okay? If so then Wiki should know better than to create and maintain a policy that is so blatantly unenforceable. In this last case I invested considerable time and effort to reword the content and redesign the graphics so as not to violate Wiki’s copyright policy, and placed it directly into the article. I did this because of the critical importance of the subject, but I doubt I’ll go to that effort again. Why? Because I did it once already on our website, and it seems counterproductive to say the same thing two different ways. Aren’t hyperlinks a fundamental and invaluable Internet tool for this very reason?
Wiki and Requestion are free to create, interpret and apply spam policy as each chooses. At the same time, this spirit should be tempered with the unconceited realization that much valuable, relevant, and unbiased content exits on commercial sites. The External Links section of each article exists, I assume, for this reason. Why not evaluate the content of external links based on the merit of the information they provide as opposed to who placed them there? I occurs to me that Wiki readers would only benefit from such a reasonable approach. Rwl10267 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rwl10267. I find your extremely honest comment saddening. I thought we had made so much progress (see WP:GRIEF). I even considered you one of my success stories. I guess I was wrong. I guess I need to try harder next time. (Requestion 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Requestion, in fact I am one of your success stories! I couldn't and wouldn't have gone through my editing effort if not for you. But sorry to disappoint, I don't fit the Wiki 5-stage model for grieving. I'm still here and still fully appreciate Wiki content -- with or without my links. I'll embellish Wiki content from time to time, but I hope you understand that wholesale rewrites of material that already exists in a form completely devoid of commercial content is not very productive. I further hope that you reconsider the last paragraph of my previous post and apply your considerable influence to make such pointless efforts obsolete. No hard feelings. I know you have a job to do. I just wish you weren’t so…..enthusiastic ;-)) Rwl10267 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Rwl10267, this has nothing to do anymore with the quality of Wikipedia. What once began as a legitimate struggle against guenine spam ( irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defined it), and which we all despise has since long degenerated. First in linkspam fundamentalism banning any external link (however relevant it may be), then in censorship of content they dislike, and since a couple of months in a war for power between the bullies and bona fide contributors who soon give up their struggle for survival before the ruthless vandalism of the bullies.
Look at the long history of mass destructions here Special:Contributions/Requestion. See how it gradually escalated and degenerated, and how every case of vandalism give them more confidence to vandalise others. See how it escalated till they found they could challenge phd's from the worlds finest universities as they did here Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet.In the end those guys believe they are god, as one victim put it.
When even links to a PhD of the Cambridge University like this http://spam.ffconsultancy.com/free/thesis.html. is considered as spam, I wonder what will be left to link. When Requestion will have finished his censorship vocation we end up with a wikipedi-ette a in pocket format; Handy I agree, but not very informative.
The techniques these guys use: mass-destruction of constructive contributions, unappropriate warnings, intimidation, threats with banning, boycots and blacklisting constitute guenine terror and have all the characteristics of cyber-bullying such as wonderfully described here: Bullying. Read what motivates the sick minds of bullies here Bullying#Characteristics_of_bullies. Read how they attribute each other rewards for ferocity here User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
Dont expect reasonabilty from them by being friendly. Dont expect reasonable arguments. Each time you ask these guys for detailed justification, they fail to produce concrete evidence. Dont believe their escalating warnings. Dont believe their threats with blocking and blacklisting. Ignore all their automatically generated messages. Dont believe their false accusations of improper behaviour on the slightest technical error you make. Dont lose time reading pages and pages of irrelevant instructions their vague automatically generated instructions direct you to.
External links are indeed a perfectly integrating part of WP. WP instructions cannot be clearer as under WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relavant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. --87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL doesn't say "then link, by all means.'" (Requestion 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm afraid you're entitled to your own opinion, twisted as it is. You're not going to change anybody's opinion here though, just like we don't seem going to be able to change yours. If you have questions about particular parts of Wikipedia's editing practice, feel free to start a discussion with the general public at the appropriate policy pages, or if the current consensus isn't to your liking you can even try to get it changed.
I think any further targeting of this user's talkpage with accusations of vandalism or attacks against how spam is handled in general can only serve the purpose of harassment and personal retaliation against the one who simply was the first to remove your spam. He won't be the last. You feel bullied because your edits got removed? Boohoo. You agree to it with every single editbox that you use: if you don't want your spam get edited mercilessly, do not submit it. Femto 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the harassers feel harrassed by reasonable arguments and concrete evidence? I only wanted to warn other victims about methods used by this gang. The debate would have been closed long time ago if you accepted to be reasonable such as I proposed six times in the most friendly manner. After all the harrassement I went through I'll still consider abandoning the debate as soon as all illecit vandalising to our contributions and those of a few other victims we feel deep sympathy with has been undone and the boycot on all these constructive contributors is lifted. (see :WP:VAND: Types of vandalism: Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.). If You think more people should learn about this discussion; please feel free to link it wherever You want. Maybe You could start on your own talk page. Some of Your own victims might be very interested in this debate. I do not claim any copyright. --81.240.150.59 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what. Most editors find it perfectly appropriate when disputed additions are removed until consensus is reached that their inclusion is encyclopedically appropriate. Doubly so when it's a mere web directory entry that reads like an advertisement, and is copy-and-pasted conflict-of-interest spam to boot; a mere pointer leading away from Wikipedia whose fundamental goal is to create free content. We're not here for building a directory to content that is controlled by others, no matter how good. Sure, that takes more work than simply dumping links to yourself everywhere. Femto 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not again reverse the logic of WP procedures. You guys are really hard to learn. I already explained above adding is about making a totally new, unverified and untested information. Sensable users agree that for such unverified additions consensus should be obtained. Our claim for reverting is about undoing illecit vandalism to well established information which was already read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP Readers, and which should not have been blancked by requestion without consensus in the first place. --81.240.150.59 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, we must be all retarded, because your claims make less and less sense. The removal of your spam reflects consensus and is not vandalism (on the other hand, persistent reinclusion is vandalism). What "vandalism to well established information" are you referring to? You know how to link a diff. If you want to continue your accusations, you must provide specific evidence, or you will be blocked for harassment. Femto 12:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is not it. That is one more case of qualified intimidation, and on more error in your concepts. Above we expressed our explicit opposition to the blanking on several occasions, and the last time no longer ago than yesterday. So there there is absolutely no concensus. Do you guys really think that an agreement between a group of conspiring individuals can constitute a consensus against the opinion of others? Please re-read Concensus. Please learn how to gain our willing consent. Bullying us with treats, boycots, banning, ciber terror and insults are not very helpfull. Reasonability are better ways to achieve our willing consent. Which brings us back to central point of the debate: Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction,and be reasonable. From our side we are still willing to be reasonable, we only expect reasonability from your side. --81.240.150.59 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stage three, now that's progress. "Concensus" isn't the policy, Wikipedia:Consensus is. And it says "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome". Your willing consent? What about my willing consent? What about the consent of everybody else who disagreed with your spam? Yes, when something is removed and everybody except the one who added it can agree it was spam, that's consensus all right.
Okay: Next time, you don't ignore the first friendly spam warning, and don't reinclude disputed edits, and you won't get insulted with second, third, and final warnings. Next time, you don't attack other editors for not adhering to your twisted notion of how Wikipedia should be run, and they won't terrorize you by defending themselves. Next time, you don't spam for your site, and those evil, mean other editors won't have to remove it. That is reasonable, yes? I knew we can agree. Femto 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


See these Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they contain some hard truths for the workforall.net crowd:
[comment: Actually I'm not quite clear how much of a "crowd" there really is behind these IPs... Femto 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  1. ""Types of vandalism"" - spam is defined as vandalism
  2. ""What vandalism is not"" -- Requestion's actions are not vandalism
  1. ""Wikipedia is not a soapbox for":
    1. "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."
    2. "Self-promotion"
    3. "Advertising"
  2. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
--A. B. (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not copy and paste large parts of tekst in a debate. Please be precise as to what rule you refer to in this debate. We do not feel the need to comment on all WP rules you object to us here. If You would have read the debate attentively you would have kwnown the discussion about legitimity of external links has come to the point that you should not be interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link this source in case the source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article. --Bully-Buster-007 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even bother responding. The above comment is in fact duplicate talkspam that was also posted here [91]. The middle section is identical word-for-word. I feel insulted, we don't even get the decency of receiving original fuming rants anymore. (Requestion 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just did a search and the phrase "cannot be more explicit" has been repeated five times on this talk page. It is followed by "precise and affirmative", "precise and absolute", or "concrete and affirmative". See the pattern? I feel duped. (Requestion 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Foie Gras - goldarths.com linkspam



I reverted your removal of a relevant link to an OpEd piece on the subject of the article. Please consider the context and the relevance of the links when doing a mass blanket removal of the external linkage. Not all of them are spamlinks. Alex Pankratov 16:39, 1 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I did consider the context. The current goldarths.com count is 46 linkspams that were added mostly to luxury related articles. All of the above IP addresses are registered to SingNet Pte Ltd in Singapore. (Requestion 22:41, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


221.128.147.236's mystery comment

I understand that Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links, nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. However in doing your job as an external link cleaning man, you seem to have forgotten that valuable external links relevant to the subject do not count as link spam. Please educate yourself on the article topic before vandalising users' contributions and discouraging them from enhancing Wikipedia. - unsigned comment by (User:221.128.147.236 18:22, 3 May 2007)

It appears that you are unhappy because I deleted an external link of yours. Unfortunately I have no idea what you are talking about. I checked your contribution log and I haven't touched any of your edits so this is a complete mystery. Great, now I have random IP addresses accusing me of vandalism without any form of context. (Requestion 19:25, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


publicintegrity.org



Please do not delete content from articles on Wikipedia, as you did to War on Terrorism. Your edits appear to be vandalism and have been reverted. If you would like to experiment, please use Wikipedia:Sandbox for test edits. Thank you. Quadpus 20:17, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Quadpus. You have wandered into a mass spamming that I'm still in the process of unraveling. My current rough guess to the extent of this exuberant external linking is 70 linkspams that have been deleted by many different editors. The truly sad part is that The Center for Public Integrity's political views are pretty much in-sync with mine. Famous quote: "I'd don't care if you're the freakin' Pope, nobody gets to spam Wikipedia!" (Requestion 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Requestion&oldid=129509316"