Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam: 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 234: Line 234:


{{deferblack}} [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
{{deferblack}} [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

== Turkish porn/escort spam ==

In case it isn't obvious from the title, all domains are NSFW.

;Sites spammed
*{{spamlink|sohbetask.net}}
*{{spamlink|startravestiler.net}}
*{{spamlink|startravestiler.com}}
*{{spamlink|travestilerburda.com}}
*{{spamlink|adultvizyon.com}}
*{{spamlink|travesti34.net}}
*{{spamlink|travestialemi.net}}
*{{spamlink|travesti35.com}}
*{{spamlink|travestiler1.com}}
*{{spamlink|starderya.com}}
*{{spamlink|travestitravestiler.net}}
*{{spamlink|travestitravestiler.com}}
*{{spamlink|travestiler.net}}

;Spammers
*{{IPSummary|78.181.5.134}}
:*Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see [[:tr:Special:Contributions/78.181.5.134]]
*{{IPSummary|78.185.63.221}}
:*Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see [[:tr:Special:Contributions/78.185.63.221]]
*{{IPSummary|78.191.55.232}}
:*Spammed on Turkish Wikipedia, see [[:tr:Special:Contributions/78.191.55.232]]
*{{IPSummary|85.103.148.180}}
*{{IPSummary|85.103.31.127}}
*{{IPSummary|85.108.196.87}}
:*Cross-wiki spammer, see [http://toolserver.org/~luxo/contributions/contributions.php?user=85.108.196.87&lang=en]
*{{IPSummary|85.108.193.200}}
*{{IPSummary|88.243.223.151}}

{{defermetablack}} [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)

Revision as of 03:15, 7 March 2011

    When reporting spam, please use the appropriate template(s):
    As a courtesy, please consider informing other editors if their actions are being discussed.
    Shortcuts
    {{Link summary|example.com}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template - Do not include the "http://www." portion of the URL inside this template
    • {{IP summary}} - to report anonymous editors suspected of spamming:
    {{IP summary|127.0.0.1}} --- do not use "subst:" with this template
    • {{User summary}} - to report registered users suspected of spamming:
    {{User summary|Username}} -- do not use "subst:" with this template

    Also, please include links ("diffs") to sample spam edits.

    Click here to start a new report
    Indicators
    Reports completed:
     Done
    no No action
     Stale
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Global blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter
    Information:
     Additional information needed
    information Note:

    Internet Brands spam on Wikipedia

    Parked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/Internet Brands for now. MER-C 12:34, 1 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    netvalley.com

    REFSPAM for this self-published website. The material added, example here in Innovation, is often (I have not checked every one) taken word-for-word from the cited netvalley.com article.

    Knff took exception here at Talk:Hewlett-Packard to my reversion of an edit by Brigclark composed partly of a lengthy passage lifted directly from the New York Times, and partly of editorial opinion cited to netvalley.com. He is lobbying in that section and on his talk page here for netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web. --CliffC (talk) 15:48, 19 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear CliffC, you wrote: "He is lobbying in that section and on his talk page here for netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web."
    The last word - Web - looks like a typo. I provided you with a List of more then 100 printed books (the printed Encyclopedias including) that more then 12 years use netvalley as a reputable source. You've read the long list of these printed books and wrote in your complain that I tried to convince you that "netvalley.com to be considered a reliable source for Wikipedia, due to its use as a reference elsewhere on the web." .
    I guess it was a typo, because ... printed books vs. Web references ... both of us understand the difference. Am I correct?--Knff (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    --Knff (talk) 15:12, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, CliffC wrote: "lengthy passage lifted directly from the New York Times". What he called a "lengthy passage" is the following 3 short phrases:

    On September 7, 2010 H.P. filed a lawsuit in the Superior Court of California in Santa Clara against former CEO Mark Hurd. The suit accused Mr. Hurd of violating his severance agreement to protect H.P.’s confidential information by taking a job as co-president of Oracle, an H.P. rival and partner. H.P. filed its complaint less than a day after Mr. Hurd joined Oracle and gained a seat on the board.

    This quotation was supported by references to the author, the link and detailed description of the source. I also provided CliffC -- see the discussion page of HP article -- with detailed clarification that this kind of short quotation can be consider as a Fair use and he again do not mention this part of our discussion in his complain... --Knff (talk) 15:49, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Also,

    --CliffC (talk) 16:03, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And

    Betty1995's one edit, to Stanford University, is a cut-and-paste quotebox cited to netvalley.com that was also added to High tech, Startup company and Innovation. The boxed material consists of several sentences lifted verbatim from the copyrighted netvalley.com article. --CliffC (talk) 18:45, 20 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Knff continues to add REFSPAM sourced to self-published website netvalley.com. I have removed the latest few and left a note on his talk page advising him of this discussion. --CliffC (talk) 04:16, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    __________________

    Dear CliffC, if you prefer we can continue our discussion here. I still am not sure why you think that a couple of phrases from NY Times article needs to be rewritten to be included to the HP article. After all I doubt that many people can write better than NY Times authors. I also would like to bring to your attention that, unlike you, Enciclopedia Britanica and other reputable science and educational organizations consider netvalley.com a reputable source.

    As I've wrote to you 18 February 2011 at the HP page discussion, Google's book section provides long List of more then 100 books that were printed during recent 14 years and used netvalley.com as one of the most reliable source.

    For your convenience below please find a couple of the tittles of List of these books:

    • Encyclopedia of new media: an essential reference to communication ...
    • Encyclopedia of computer science and technology
    • Sergey Brin and Larry Page: the founders of Google
    • Statistics: the art and science of learning from data
    • Information resources management: global challenges
    • Roles and perspectives in the law: essays in honour of Sir Ivor ...
    • Innovation and the communications revolution: from the Victorian ...
    • Law, economics and cyberspace: the effects of cyberspace on the ...
    • Financing economic development in the 21st century
    • Politics on the Internet: a student guide
    • The Internet: a historical encyclopedia
    • Dictionary of media and communications
    • Science and Society

    . . . . . . . . . .

    You can get your own version of this List (that include the citation's page # and it's screen shot), if you will type "netvalley.com" at the Google search's book section.

    If you don't rely on traditionally printed book and prefer online sources only, you can take a look for instance to the Encyclopedia Britannica that provide link to the "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" section of netvalley.com from the following page: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/291494/Internet

    Let me remind to you again. that HURD part of HP history valuable one and concealing it would be a mistake and disservice to wikipedia users.

    I guess you understand that just crying "spam" could not be consider as an answer to my question: why do you prefer to hide one of the most important fact of computer industry history?

    Thanks, --Knff (talk) 12:45, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PS. As I can see it now, you also removed my contribution to the Browser wars article. It was a quotation from Jim Barksdale, President and CEO of Netscape Communications. The quotation was removed because it can be found - on the Web - at the netvalley.com only. So. now you consider the eBook "The Roads and Crossroads of Internet History" as a spam too ... Did you try at least to open the the page http://www.netvalley.com/cgi-bin/intval/net_history.pl?chapter=4 that you decided to call a spam?

    What else do you intend to do in order to hide the "Hurd Saga" at the HP page? I asked Google about it and now I can help you. There is a long quotation from netvalley.com at the Bill Clinton article -- Section "First term, 1993–1997" -- too. Not enough? Go to Al Gore page and search for key-phrase "S 2594 Supercomputer Network Study Act of 1986". Please remove them first and I will provide you with some more tips ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knff (talk • contribs) 13:48, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PPS. I hope that respective team of wikipedia Editors will finally clarify you the difference between high quality content and spam. Perhaps someone even remind you the basic rule: 'every time when you block someone from an opportunity to contribute the high quality content, you rise the level of spam'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Knff (talk • contribs) 14:17, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    --Knff (talk) 14:20, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am not seeing the harm of using some of the netvalley pages to support facts. Binksternet (talk) 17:28, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Netvalley is a self-published source, Knff says so himself on his talk page. Second, the users listed above seem to take a casual view of copyright, that is, they think it's acceptable to use reporting from someone else's copyrighted material so long as it's put in a quote box and attributed. I don't think Wikipedia should be an collection of quotes taken directly from someone else's work.
    I took exception to Knff's Brigclark's addition here to Hewlett-Packard because in discussing former CEO Mark Hurd it included editorial opinion about California employment law. Knff defended Brigclark's edit, in what became an extended discussion at Talk:Hewlett-Packard. That section deserves a full reading by anyone interested in this subject. Summing it up, I question whether netvalley is a reliable source, and why an editor would want to use a long string of reportage from the NY Times instead of simply paraphrasing it. I see that as a copyright violation. Knff says he wants to get material about what he calls the "Hurd Saga" into the HP article; I suggested a way to do it. He didn't answer my question "Is your goal at Wikipedia to improve the HP article by expanding on Hurd's career, or to get a link to netvalley.com installed?". Looking at the edits of the users listed above, it looks like the goal is to add links.
    As to my reverting this recent Knff edit to Browser wars, I considered it WP:REFSPAM, inserted to promote a site. Taking a second look at the text today, it doesn't seem like a Barksdale "quote" at all - the language seems clumsy and I can't find this quote or anything like it on the web, except at netvalley. --CliffC (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    __________
    Thank you Binksternet. Unfortunately our opinions have no effect on CliffC position. He does not want or just can’t understand that netvalley.com that originally, in 1995, was a "self published site", since then has been evaluated and checked hundreds of times by dozens of leading world publishers and now is considered by educational and scientific publications as one of the most reliable sources of information.

    On a number of occasions CliffC looked at the long list of printed books and magazines regularly quoting netvalley.com, but still he keeps repeating that it is a self published source and therefore he would continue removing it from articles. The arguments he uses to additionally justify his position are really impressive:

    1) CliffC deleleted my contribution to HP related aricle in part because: 'there are probably few "important facts" (not opinions) about Hurd available at netvalley.com that have not already been published by mainstream media...'. --CliffC 14:29, 19 February 2011 (UTC)
    2) CliffC deleleted my contribution to the "Browsers Wars" aricle in part because as he wrote, 'I can't find this quote or anything like it on the web, except at netvalley.' --CliffC 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    When there are other sources, CliffC insists that the source that I offered should not be used. In situations when he can’t find sources other than the ones I propose, CliffC suggest that using my sources is a bad idea because he found none.

    Some of recent CliffC arguments became even more impressive: 'As to my reverting this recent Knff edit to Browser wars, ... it doesn't seem like a Barksdale "quote" at all - the language seems clumsy...' --CliffC 20:03, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

    You might be sure that if somebody will bring an original transcript of the interview with Barksdale that contain the netvalley.com "quote", nothing will be changed for CliffC, because it looks like this is not about the facts at all...
    -- Knff (talk) 07:52, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    _________

    Okay, I will concede that a search of the Google books section for netvalley.com shows that your online magazine has been mentioned as a reference on the Internet by scores of books, from Encyclopedia of computer science and technology, to Textbook of bladder cancer, to Demonology Revealed.
    Moving on to reference spam, the subject of this report, the editors listed above (whose writing style seems distinctly similar to your own) all cite netvalley.com, or they simply defend a netvalley link whose removal has been threatened. There seems to be a conflict of interest, defined as "contributing to Wikipedia in order to promote your own interests or those of other individuals, companies, or groups", in the edits these editors, including yourself, have made.
    I have made a concession. Will you concede that you have a conflict of interest when adding netvalley links to Wikipedia? Acknowledging a conflict of interest would mean that in future you would suggest updates on article talk pages rather than editing the articles directly. --CliffC (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Opera recordings

    Operawalker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)

    This SPA is solely adding material relating to the output of a single record company. almost-instinct 23:49, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I reverted a couple of these as WP:PROMOTION and warned the user (the first warning they've had). On 18 February someone created Dynamic (record label); Operawalker is now very busy adding blue links to it. --CliffC (talk) 05:52, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Operajumper (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Who's we? MER-C 06:35, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I shall bring this conversation to the attention of the Opera Wikiproject, as someone there will be better able to assess the notability of this record label and the various recordings almost-instinct 12:20, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I assume "We" refers to Operajumper and Operawalker, and in a larger sense Dynamic as they are clearly connected to the record company. Operajumper created the article for the company originally under the article title "DYNAMIC" and it looked like this when I found it. I re-wrote and referenced it and moved it to Dynamic (record label). Annoying as the original mess article was, this is actually (now) a useful article. This is a very well known record label, particularly in Italy but also elsewhere. They specialise in rarely recorded operas and have made several world premiere recordings (both cd and dvd) and have received several awards. Read the currrent article and you'll see what I mean. The later spamming by Operawalker has also been very annoying, as he/she doesn't pipe the links and was creating loads of inappropriate red links too. Having said that, I have re-added the two recordings that were removed because they are valuable additions to articles which had no recordings listed at all. Personally, I would leave the others too, but the two editors should be cautioned about WP:COI and spamming. Voceditenore (talk) 12:50, 26 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't currently follow any opera articles, so I may be overlooking something in the following comments. Voceditenore says that the two edits I reverted as promotional had no recordings listed at all, but I chose these edits [1] and [2] deliberately, because they appeared quite spammy. They dropped highly detailed blurbs (including Dynamic catalog numbers) at the top of "Recordings" sections that before consisted of a single link to an existing discography; these existing links were:
    Other edits look spammy, although perhaps it's just due to a lack of consideration for the appearance of the end result. An example: while otherwise paralleling the eight existing entries in the "Video" section of The Barber of Seville discography, this edit links Dynamic (record label), links the theater of performance La Fenice, and includes the work's catalog number, 33597. End result, this entry has undue weight, as no others include blue links or catalog numbers. Assuming Dynamic passes the test for notability and these edits remain, they need thoughtful copyediting and trimming by experienced editors. --CliffC (talk) 01:50, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, they do need work, but the simple external link to a source is not helpful to the reader and actually shouldn't be sole the contents of a section. Over the months, I've been gradually try to repair these instances which were added by another editor. I'm afraid the recordings sections in most opera-related articles do not have a completely unified style, although many of them have now been converted to table format. But full catalogue number, if known, is customary and preferred, as is a link to the label if it has an article. See La bohème discography, La forza del destino#Recordings, Dinorah#Recordings, and Ricciardo e Zoraide#Recordings for example. Voceditenore (talk) 07:01, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the video section on The Barber of Seville discography, is particularly badly formatted seems to have just been plunked there. If you look higher up at the CDs, they are all wikified and include cat number. Note also that the editor did not add it at the top of the video list but in chronological order. Voceditenore (talk) 07:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    help please

    My site www.comedyseries.info was listed on WikiProject_Spam because of the links placed on some pages of Wikipedia, but since I have no idea what it means could someone answer my questions:

    1. if my site is listed on WikiProject_Spam does it mean that it was marked as a spam by users or robots?

    2. since I've removed all my links does it mean my site will be removed from WikiProject_Spam?

    3. if answer to question 2 is "no" what can or should I do to remove my site from WikiProject_Spam?

    Adam —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.31.131.74 (talk) 09:47, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    1) Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/comedyseries.info - "This is an automated report generated by COIBot." The monitor reason is you are the only person who added the link, this is bot identified.
    2) We can (but I can't) delete the reports on the understanding that you will not add further links to this site per the conflict of interest guidelines. (If you do, there will be consequences.)
    3) Even if the report isn't deleted, it will be forgotten about in short order if no further additions of links to this site occur. MER-C 13:29, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    inogolo.com

    Google-ads site that has been spammed by SPAs and IPs for years. I just noticed it myself recently. Any objections to mass removal of it? OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:10, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    User:Naomiger

    Naomiger (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)...Modernist (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    WP:SPA used to add website despite numerous warnings...Modernist (talk) 05:23, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jun 1#http://spam.all-art.org. MER-C 13:22, 28 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    citypopulation.de

    The user is introducing the link as a reference for area populations. I don't see the link as acceptable as a reliable source...it does not appear to be from an authoritative source but it is second sourcing census.gov. In some cases, he is replacing the .gov source, changing the numbers, and loosely citing the .gov source while introducing the link (example). I have attempted to stop him and discuss this on his talk page but he has not responded but instead continues to introduce these links which I now see as RefSpam. I reverted him a couple of times so he might take notice but he is plodding on without responding. I will notify him of this discussion.
    ⋙–Berean–Hunter—► ((⊕)) 00:21, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not the first time this has come up... MER-C 04:48, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with the removal of the link where used for raw statistical data. The statistical data appears to be scraped from multiple sources - it would be better to use those originating sources as the refs. In a few cases, the site also performs some analysis of that data to generate rankings and similar derivative information. For that purpose, the site appears to be a reliable source ... however, those few uses could easilly be white-listed if the root domain were blacklisted due to the persistent abuse.
    I'll look a bit closer at all of this when I have access to my primary computer again ... my current access is somewhat limited. --- Barek (talk) - 00:16, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ariveinthan Mageswaran?

    At the bottom of the wiki page for Khoa Do, Australian of the Year, there seems to be spam at the bottom about "Ariveinthan Mageswaran". A quick google search confirms that he seems to have spammed his way onto multiple pages which he is not related to. I tried to edit but it doesn't seem to show up - any solutions guys? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.120.16.131 (talk) 06:19, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Nuked. It was in Template:Asia-actor-stub. MER-C 06:46, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    starstube.narod2.ru

    starstube.narod2.ru: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Aggressive, address-changing link spammer not above making legal threats. Adding domain to Erotica as 95.158.193.191 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.158.206.78 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), 95.158.198.134 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) and Fairest-Bot (talk · contribs). Possible similar activity in DE (which I cannot read). Warned on all three IP addresses—the named account looks like a one-shot. Contrib history is entirely spamming. Multiple warnings, no discussion except assertions in edit summary that these links are just fine. / edg ☺ ☭ 13:20, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Add spam phone number

    166.137.141.78 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theborgs (talk • contribs)

    Timestamp. MER-C 07:21, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    healthsystemcanada.com

    Adsense pub-534892117931800
    Google Analytics UA-19825287, UA-7478402, UA-19880814, UA-19938272, UA-19841942, UA-16856963

    Related domains
    Possibly related domains
    Spammers

     Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 07:18, 4 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Turkish porn/escort spam

    In case it isn't obvious from the title, all domains are NSFW.

    Sites spammed
    Spammers
    • Cross-wiki spammer, see [3]

     Defer to Global blacklist MER-C 03:15, 7 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=417541075"