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
SineBot (talk | contribs)
Bots
2,549,204 edits
m Signing comment by Zeroyon01 - "→‎Nagaqueen13:: new section"
Undid revision 487026796 by Zeroyon01 (talk) one last time
Line 126: Line 126:
*{{User summary|Songriter en}}
*{{User summary|Songriter en}}
User appears to be dedicated to adding facts sourced to a website which is presumably equally dedicated to selling its reports. I haven't done anything yet (severe AGF). Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
User appears to be dedicated to adding facts sourced to a website which is presumably equally dedicated to selling its reports. I haven't done anything yet (severe AGF). Any thoughts? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

== easypetmd.com ==

{{Link summary|easypetmd.com}}

{{IP summary|208.78.128.207}}

{{User summary|Zeroyon01}}

Both accounts used primarily for adding references to easypetmd.com. Look at [http://www.easypetmd.com/ http://www.easypetmd.com/][http://i.imm.io/l8hD.png (archive)]. The last four articles were published there less than ten hours ago and he has been active on all four wiki articles.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cirneco_dell%27Etna&diff=485639447&oldid=456128672 Cirneco_dell%27Etna][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cane_Corso&diff=485621876&oldid=481741147 Cane_Corso][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basset_Hound&diff=485579329&oldid=485465300 Basset_Hound][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akbash_Dog&diff=485564541&oldid=480760312 Akbash_Dog]. Some edits do expand on the content so we could [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Assuming_good_faith assume good faith] but I think it still falls under citation spamming. Take [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norfolk_Spaniel&diff=483536284&oldid=471758716 this addition] to the Norfolk Spaniel article. It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norfolk_Spaniel&diff=483548847&oldid=483536284 reverted] by the wiki user who brought it up to GA standard as he thought that it was based on his article and not independent.

Google analytics ID for easypetmd.com is the same as that for pawsdogdaycare.com. Clickbank ID for pawsdogdaycare.com is zeroyon.[http://reverseinternet.com/domain/www.pawsdogdaycare.com] And [http://k9comfortzonenews.blogspot.com/2007/08/still-working-page-rankings.html here's pawsdogdaycare working their page ranking]

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


:I'm sorry I'm going to have to defend myself on this one. Especially in light of the fact that Dodo Bird took it upon himself to present his case in as negative and incriminating a manner as possible. I'll try and go point by point so it is clear for dodo bird, and he does not have to spend hours fretting about who is improving the wiki.
::{{IP summary|208.78.128.207}}
::{{User summary|Zeroyon01}}''
:Why yes, that is my work IP and my username, since I enjoy reading about the breeds and adding to them, often times I will arrive at work and flip on the computer and compare my research to what is on the wiki. I am action oriented and I will instinctively hit the edit tab and go right to editing an article. My apologizes if I have not logged in under my username prior to making every edit that I have made, it actually annoyed me as well as I am trying to get to a thousand edits by the end of the year and by failing to log in I lost those edits for my username.
:''"Both accounts used primarily for adding references to easypetmd.com. Look at [http://www.easypetmd.com/ http://www.easypetmd.com/][http://i.imm.io/l8hD.png (archive)]."''
:As I stated to Dodo bird previously, if I am able to utilize a good source I will continue to use it. If everything that I needed was in the Ency Britanica that would be awesome, as I could just reference that material, however it is not. Additionally, many breeds are hundreds if not thousands of years old and it requires the ability to competently sift through and interpret a wide range of factors to determine their origin. Migratory patterns of early man, places and times that the wolf was domesticated, first to eighteenth century trading routes, migrations, climate changes, Geo-political events etc. Determining were many of these breeds actually originate is more a matter of putting forth the best theory with the best evidence as is possible and even then some of their origins shall remain strictly a theory. As to the jab about both being used primarily for adding reference, "both accounts are used to edit and improve the wiki".
:Gotta head to work but will be back on in an hour or so (from there) to continue this rebuttal.
:Alright back to it.
:''The last four articles were published there less than ten hours ago and he has been active on all four wiki articles.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cirneco_dell%27Etna&diff=485639447&oldid=456128672 Cirneco_dell%27Etna][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cane_Corso&diff=485621876&oldid=481741147 Cane_Corso][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basset_Hound&diff=485579329&oldid=485465300 Basset_Hound][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Akbash_Dog&diff=485564541&oldid=480760312 Akbash_Dog].''
:This falls into the category of one trying to ass-u-me to much. Anytime the site he refers to notes a change in the page, comment, cache clear, edit etc. it updates the main page and places it back on the front page as recently added/modified. An example would be as I compare the reference material to that which is on the wiki in order to improve the latter. Thus it makes sense that there is going to be a correlation reflected between the two in the form of both pages being accessed. In actuality the articles he is referring to were all written over a year ago. Specifically the dates of their original posting to the WWW are as follows:
:Akbash Dog- 03/09/11, Cane Corso -05/02/11, Basset Hound - 05/15/11, Cirneco dell'Etna -07/07/11
:''Some '''edits do expand on the content so we could [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#Assuming_good_faith assume good faith]''' but I think it still falls under citation spamming.''
:I find it to be a bit offensive that Mr. Dodobird, is trying minimize the improvements I have made in the form of relevance, content, format, cleaning out the junk etc. with the statement that "some of the edits do expand on the content..." Every change that I have made improves upon and/or expands upon the reliability, credibility and content of the article. I also take solace in the fact that as incriminating and overbearing as he is trying to be '''he is still forced to make the admission that the edits did improve the content of the articles.''' Also you as Dodo stated, <u>it is Wiki Policy to Assume Good Faith</u>. Additionally the "I think it still falls" has no place in encyclopedic content; nor does "I feel", "my opinion is" etc. It is or it is not, it improves or it does not, you stated it improves the articles case closed.
:Expanding further on that, take a look at my edits, look at the before and afters on the breeds I have worked on, look at the time stamps, as in most cases I spend an hour or more working on each page I come across. I am not simply jumping onto a page and dropping a non-relevant citation and moving on in a reckless or haphazard manner which could be done in seconds. <u>I am actually taking the time to look at every external link, every reference link, the layout of the page, the content of the page, the facts or assertions presented and make the changes necessary to improve the overall end product.</u> I add missing sections, delete erroneous ones, remove links to sites in the external links sections, reference sections, or further reading sections etc. that are strictly there to sell a product (puppies is one that I came across- posted by a breeder), another one to a foreign language porn site etc. I also add references from other sites and take my time to completely write entire sections of material for certain breeds.
:As to my reference style I tend to place a ref tag after every solid stand alone sentence that conveys a solid fact or idea. In the past (years ago) I wrote entire breed articles on the wiki, paragraphs and paragraphs of text (at the end of which I would ad a "ref" tag) only to have another user come in and add a one sentence blurb at the end and remove my ref tag and insert another one (thus depreciating my work in creating the entire paragraph that preceded it). I was a bit scorned by the wiki because of that and made no further contributions for a few years. I recently found myself with a lot of time on my hands and began to get back into reading the articles and can say I am pretty well appalled at some of the information presented in the articles. Dogs are my passion, they are how I have chosen to spend my lifes work and I am passionate about making sure the information about them on the wiki is correct and not a junk compilation of random thoughts, and speculation. <u>So yes my contributions have improved the wiki as DoDo already admitted.</u>
:Additionally as I explained to Dodo, he wants me to take a circuitous journey to find regurgitated references for citation variety when I can simply find them all in one place, which to me is ludicrous. I apologize if I like my fishing spot, and don't feel the need to cast my line haphazardly about to catch the same fish in a different spot.
:Take [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norfolk_Spaniel&diff=483536284&oldid=471758716 this addition] to the Norfolk Spaniel article. It was [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Norfolk_Spaniel&diff=483548847&oldid=483536284 reverted] by the wiki user who brought it up to GA standard as he thought that it was based on his article and not independent.
:Again Dodo is trying to ass-u-me to much. Additionally he is once again trying to put forth a jaded and incriminating proposition by hunting and pecking through the facts and choosing only the evidence he feels best suits his personal crusade. So yes lets look at the link he provided, more specifically lets look at my response to the "wiki user" who brought it up.
:''The content does not reference wikipedia and the article as a whole is considerably more detailed and provides a great deal more information than the wiki blurb.''
:''The source list for the article is as follows (none of which are the wiki, and no the article is not based off the wiki as you so boldly asserted)''.
:Sources [http://www.spanielsinthefield.com/library-05.asp http://www.spanielsinthefield.com/library-05.asp] [http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dogs/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Norfolk-Spaniel.html http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dogs/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Norfolk-Spaniel.html] [http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dog-Shows/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Spaniels.html http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dog-Shows/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Spaniels.html] [http://books.google.com/books?id=Pj8DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=norfolk+spaniel+stonehenge&source=bl&ots=IMfkglsFZ_&sig=f5AU-aWfvAOmVlZ_BlFyVCIab58&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SHtrT6HAE9OmsAKAxsXyBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=Pj8DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=norfolk+spaniel+stonehenge&source=bl&ots=IMfkglsFZ_&sig=f5AU-aWfvAOmVlZ_BlFyVCIab58&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SHtrT6HAE9OmsAKAxsXyBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false] [http://books.google.com/books?id=6EI8K_udJwIC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=history+of+the+norfolk+spaniel&source=bl&ots=HjjS4BTHGa&sig=33Xc3TbRmwChvtidDDiZThhDyLc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lHtrT9W4PK_ksQKizqj_BQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20norfolk%20spaniel&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6EI8K_udJwIC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=history+of+the+norfolk+spaniel&source=bl&ots=HjjS4BTHGa&sig=33Xc3TbRmwChvtidDDiZThhDyLc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lHtrT9W4PK_ksQKizqj_BQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20norfolk%20spaniel&f=false] — Preceding [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Wikipedia:Signatures unsigned] comment added by [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/Special:Contributions/208.78.128.207 208.78.128.207] ([http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki/User_talk:208.78.128.207 talk]) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)''
:Additionally <u>it should be noted that my edit has stood</u> and <u>the user who commented on it has conceded the point that it is not based off the wiki</u> as I was kind enough to provide a source list for the article. This is nothing more than an attempt by Dodo to dig dirt, and try and cast an insidious light upon a good faith edit and one that has already been discussed and closed out by two other individuals.
:''Google analytics ID for easypetmd.com is the same as that for pawsdogdaycare.com. Clickbank ID for pawsdogdaycare.com is zeroyon.[http://reverseinternet.com/domain/www.pawsdogdaycare.com]
: Not sure what the point of this is, other than trying to build a non existent case. I mean seriously if we could all spend this much time and effort trying to improve upon the wiki instead of trying to out people it would be a much better information repository. Congrats, Dodo you have established that I am associated with a pet care business, (I already stated that in my little wiki bio page, although I did not put the name of the business for the sake of anonymity). Thank you for confirming that I work day in and day out with dogs. Additionally before you pull my credit report, or have a private investigator tail me I also tell you I'm a Pisces, a 10 year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, entered initially as a Combat Engineer and later laterally moved to EOD where I worked with the State Department as part of Colin Powells Secret Service detail. From there I went into training dogs for explosive detection, I'm married, no kids, 8 dogs, have a bachelor’s degree in Canine Studies, have worked at the community college level, have worked with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, on the board for the Animal Welfare League,etc. Additionally you can use your sleuth skills to gimme a call if you like.
:And [http://k9comfortzonenews.blogspot.com/2007/08/still-working-page-rankings.html here's pawsdogdaycare working their page ranking]
: Really? look at the date in the URL, additionally it showed page not found when I clicked on it, and every other blog entry there is likewise dated in the 2007 range with nothing more recent. Dodo stop digging for the smoking gun in something that is 5 years old and trying to push it to the for front of this debate like it's relevant ..
:''Me asking him to declare conflict of interest and note that his source doesn't meet WP:RS standard, plus his replies.[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dodo_bird#dog_breeds] His reply is that the source is reliable because the articles are high quality("You are more than welcome to read through the texts before making a declarative judgement without properly evaluating the source and quality of the source of its entirety"), and they contain excellent original research.("(the articles) kicks back to and references the great authors of the past; Shaw, Kimble, Cauis etc. using their arguments, observations and assertions to formulate excellent theories and make previously overlooked connections")''
: Why yes I did say the above and I stand by the statement, not sure what Dodo is trying to get at here. Also in the referenced conversation Dodo also contends that each referenced article should have the personal information of the author posted prominently by it so he or somebody can judge their credibility and/or run a background check I don't know. I can tell you the site DOES NOT allow user submitted articles, that each article is reviewed by more than one professional editor, that the content is written by someone who is an "expert" on the topic matter. I mean would Dodo be this upset if Stephen Hawking started making edits to pages pertaining the universe and using his previous lectures and such as references? He's an expert in his field, Cynology however, does not tend to carry the clout that figuring out the mysteries of the universe does. Additionally this is not a criminal trial and there is no I have to step down as it is "a conflict of interest". I am improving the articles not depreciating them or damaging them in any other way. I am also attentive and have made edits to a few articles (Akita Inu) "requested by other wiki admins" who saw no problem with the reference material. I have also had users thank me for providing useful information.
:Additionally as I told Dodo I could spend hours going through and pulling all the junk links, and garbage references out of every breed article and post them in one place for him to compare to the refs that I have submitted. If we want to compare apples to apples and judge the quality of the sources presented in the breed articles lets start lining up citations from articles and deleting all (and the accompanying text) that Dodo feels are suspect. The result would be half the articles would be gone. I have even come across breed articles with NO CITATIONS at all, which according to wiki policy, based upon a complete lack of references, the article should not even exist. Some of which have been that way for years, pure unreferenced speculation. I find it odd that I take an interest in the breeds and spend a ton of time fixing them and improving upon them and it really upsets Dodo. I don't know why, I tried to be civil and discuss the issue with him but he chose to escalate it here and is the only person out of the millions of wiki users that view those pages that has chose to make an issue out of it. As I stated other wiki editors (admins) have viewed the changes, suggested changes, and accepted them and the source. So again I don't know why Dodo seems so hell bent to run me away from the Wiki. Promote me, I'll be a dog breed expert on here.
:To Dodo, not sure what I did to miff you, but whatever it was I apologize and I'm sure it is not so egregious that it is going to justify the time spent bantering back and forth in here over the issue. So for, however, I wronged you I apologize and if you would ever like to collaborate on an article or have dog breed related questions I would be more than happy to help you out with them. But this whole issue here is getting blown out of proportion and wasting a ton of my time, and again souring me to the wiki.
: Correct me if I am wrong but is the Wiki not about trying to build encyclopedic content on various topics through contributions from users around the world? --Rick ( [[User:Zeroyon01|Zeroyon01]] ([[User talk:Zeroyon01|talk]]) 16:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) )
::;easypetmd.com
::Financial incentive;
:::{{AdSenseSummary|4240102933333679}}
::;Additionaly;
::*Appears to have '''no''' editorial oversight (see [[WP:RS]]) and articles are essentially user submitted or [[WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)|self-published]]
::*'''''easypetmd.com''''' Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
:::*[[WP:V|”Verifiability”]]
:::**[[Wikipedia:V#Questionable_sources|” Questionable_sources”]]
:::**[[WP:V#Reliable sources|"''Verifiable'' Reliable Sources"]]
:::**[[WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)|”Self-published sources (online and paper)”]]
:::*[[WP:RS|”Reliable sources”]]
:::**[[WP:RS#Self-published_sources|”Self-published sources”]]
::Spam Accounts;
::*{{UserSummary|Zeroyon01}}
::*{{IPSummary|208.163.156.249}}
::*{{IPSummary|208.78.128.207}}
::IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to [[WP:REFSPAM|populate articles]] with the Adsense website '''''easypetmd.com ''''', and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Armant_%28dog%29&diff=485424606&oldid=455518506&diffonly=1 replacement of all existing references within articles] are never signs of good faith. {{duck}}--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

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


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

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

You also reverted changes to the golden retriever that users had given me appreciation for, as well as the Akita, and restored all the links to nefarious sites like dogbreedinfo dot com an obvious self published spam site? seriously.. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Zeroyon01|Zeroyon01]] ([[User talk:Zeroyon01|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Zeroyon01|contribs]]) 16:08, 7 April 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


== jetsetmag.com ==
== jetsetmag.com ==

Revision as of 16:35, 12 April 2012

    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:

    spamming various China articles

    221.7.151.34 (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) for a travel website. LibStar (talk) 09:08, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    knowyourfilms.com

    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-5859424709240046 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID: UA-24803384 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Spammers

    MER-C 03:45, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    user-page = spam--Hu12 (talk) 04:10, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    health-tourism.com

    Please check the different links pointing to this URL: health-tourism.com --187.61.130.221 (talk) 01:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Tracking. MER-C 04:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Agartala

    Many articles on Indian villages, towns and cities seem to want to use their pages for commercial promotion. But sometimes it seems a thin line between describing the commercial set up and and outright spam. Please check out Agartala. It lists all major banks, newspapers, private companies giving their contact details. This seems to be the template for Indian towns, not at all an exception. Thanks Span (talk) 11:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    futureconsiderations.ca

    Linkspamming hockey prospect "scouting" website. Actually seems to be replacing spam from a competing website as well.

    TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    competing site...hockeyprospect.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.hockeyprospect.com TerminalPreppie (talk) 20:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-2244949209000976 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta
    Track - Report)
    Google Analytics ID
    UA-26010934 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)
    --Hu12 (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    watermanpublications.blogspot.in: 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
    watermanpublications.blogspot.com: 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
    datelineagartala.blogspot.in: 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
    datelineagartala.blogspot.com: 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
    bodhjungschoolalumni.blogspot.com: 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
    bodhjungschool.blogspot.com: 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

    Publisher Owner Editor - Anjan Banik - anjan.writer@gmail.com / anjan_writer@yahoo.co.in [1]

    P.O. Dhaleswar, Road No 08, Agartala, Tripura, India - 799007
    Spam accounts

    --Hu12 (talk) 04:07, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fusioncharts.com

    This company appears to have employed a single purpose user user:Hjoharat via [2] to pepper WP liberally with external links to its site and create WP articles about its products. This has been going on for some time.--Aspro (talk) 21:25, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam accounts
    --Hu12 (talk) 22:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Another--Hu12 (talk) 13:53, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Weights and Measures Conversion Site Linkspam

    83.253.202.78 (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)

    This user has made 15 edits over the last 9 months, all of them links to the same site, which user apparently owns.

    This issue was discussed 6 weeks ago at Talk:Pound_(mass)#Spam_alert and resulted most or all previous edits being deleted by various users. New edits have just started popping up again. Zyxwv99 (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    integersystem.com

    integersystem.com have been spamming Mehsana persistently

    It started with a user who soon got blocked :

    Since then it's been IPs

    This is a typical diff FlagSteward (talk) 09:08, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    marketpublishers.com

    User appears to be dedicated to adding facts sourced to a website which is presumably equally dedicated to selling its reports. I haven't done anything yet (severe AGF). Any thoughts? Johnuniq (talk) 23:59, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    easypetmd.com

    easypetmd.com: 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

    208.78.128.207 (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)

    Zeroyon01 (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)

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

    Google analytics ID for easypetmd.com is the same as that for pawsdogdaycare.com. Clickbank ID for pawsdogdaycare.com is zeroyon.[3] And here's pawsdogdaycare working their page ranking

    Me asking him to declare conflict of interest and note that his source doesn't meet WP:RS standard, plus his replies.[4] His reply is that the source is reliable because the articles are high quality("You are more than welcome to read through the texts before making a declarative judgement without properly evaluating the source and quality of the source of its entirety"), and they contain excellent original research.("(the articles) kicks back to and references the great authors of the past; Shaw, Kimble, Cauis etc. using their arguments, observations and assertions to formulate excellent theories and make previously overlooked connections") And also Wikipedia:Other stuff exists.--Dodo bird (talk) 04:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)'[reply]


    I'm sorry I'm going to have to defend myself on this one. Especially in light of the fact that Dodo Bird took it upon himself to present his case in as negative and incriminating a manner as possible. I'll try and go point by point so it is clear for dodo bird, and he does not have to spend hours fretting about who is improving the wiki.
    208.78.128.207 (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)
    Zeroyon01 (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)
    Why yes, that is my work IP and my username, since I enjoy reading about the breeds and adding to them, often times I will arrive at work and flip on the computer and compare my research to what is on the wiki. I am action oriented and I will instinctively hit the edit tab and go right to editing an article. My apologizes if I have not logged in under my username prior to making every edit that I have made, it actually annoyed me as well as I am trying to get to a thousand edits by the end of the year and by failing to log in I lost those edits for my username.
    "Both accounts used primarily for adding references to easypetmd.com. Look at http://www.easypetmd.com/(archive)."
    As I stated to Dodo bird previously, if I am able to utilize a good source I will continue to use it. If everything that I needed was in the Ency Britanica that would be awesome, as I could just reference that material, however it is not. Additionally, many breeds are hundreds if not thousands of years old and it requires the ability to competently sift through and interpret a wide range of factors to determine their origin. Migratory patterns of early man, places and times that the wolf was domesticated, first to eighteenth century trading routes, migrations, climate changes, Geo-political events etc. Determining were many of these breeds actually originate is more a matter of putting forth the best theory with the best evidence as is possible and even then some of their origins shall remain strictly a theory. As to the jab about both being used primarily for adding reference, "both accounts are used to edit and improve the wiki".
    Gotta head to work but will be back on in an hour or so (from there) to continue this rebuttal.
    Alright back to it.
    The last four articles were published there less than ten hours ago and he has been active on all four wiki articles.Cirneco_dell%27EtnaCane_CorsoBasset_HoundAkbash_Dog.
    This falls into the category of one trying to ass-u-me to much. Anytime the site he refers to notes a change in the page, comment, cache clear, edit etc. it updates the main page and places it back on the front page as recently added/modified. An example would be as I compare the reference material to that which is on the wiki in order to improve the latter. Thus it makes sense that there is going to be a correlation reflected between the two in the form of both pages being accessed. In actuality the articles he is referring to were all written over a year ago. Specifically the dates of their original posting to the WWW are as follows:
    Akbash Dog- 03/09/11, Cane Corso -05/02/11, Basset Hound - 05/15/11, Cirneco dell'Etna -07/07/11
    Some edits do expand on the content so we could assume good faith but I think it still falls under citation spamming.
    I find it to be a bit offensive that Mr. Dodobird, is trying minimize the improvements I have made in the form of relevance, content, format, cleaning out the junk etc. with the statement that "some of the edits do expand on the content..." Every change that I have made improves upon and/or expands upon the reliability, credibility and content of the article. I also take solace in the fact that as incriminating and overbearing as he is trying to be he is still forced to make the admission that the edits did improve the content of the articles. Also you as Dodo stated, it is Wiki Policy to Assume Good Faith. Additionally the "I think it still falls" has no place in encyclopedic content; nor does "I feel", "my opinion is" etc. It is or it is not, it improves or it does not, you stated it improves the articles case closed.
    Expanding further on that, take a look at my edits, look at the before and afters on the breeds I have worked on, look at the time stamps, as in most cases I spend an hour or more working on each page I come across. I am not simply jumping onto a page and dropping a non-relevant citation and moving on in a reckless or haphazard manner which could be done in seconds. I am actually taking the time to look at every external link, every reference link, the layout of the page, the content of the page, the facts or assertions presented and make the changes necessary to improve the overall end product. I add missing sections, delete erroneous ones, remove links to sites in the external links sections, reference sections, or further reading sections etc. that are strictly there to sell a product (puppies is one that I came across- posted by a breeder), another one to a foreign language porn site etc. I also add references from other sites and take my time to completely write entire sections of material for certain breeds.
    As to my reference style I tend to place a ref tag after every solid stand alone sentence that conveys a solid fact or idea. In the past (years ago) I wrote entire breed articles on the wiki, paragraphs and paragraphs of text (at the end of which I would ad a "ref" tag) only to have another user come in and add a one sentence blurb at the end and remove my ref tag and insert another one (thus depreciating my work in creating the entire paragraph that preceded it). I was a bit scorned by the wiki because of that and made no further contributions for a few years. I recently found myself with a lot of time on my hands and began to get back into reading the articles and can say I am pretty well appalled at some of the information presented in the articles. Dogs are my passion, they are how I have chosen to spend my lifes work and I am passionate about making sure the information about them on the wiki is correct and not a junk compilation of random thoughts, and speculation. So yes my contributions have improved the wiki as DoDo already admitted.
    Additionally as I explained to Dodo, he wants me to take a circuitous journey to find regurgitated references for citation variety when I can simply find them all in one place, which to me is ludicrous. I apologize if I like my fishing spot, and don't feel the need to cast my line haphazardly about to catch the same fish in a different spot.
    Take this addition to the Norfolk Spaniel article. It was reverted by the wiki user who brought it up to GA standard as he thought that it was based on his article and not independent.
    Again Dodo is trying to ass-u-me to much. Additionally he is once again trying to put forth a jaded and incriminating proposition by hunting and pecking through the facts and choosing only the evidence he feels best suits his personal crusade. So yes lets look at the link he provided, more specifically lets look at my response to the "wiki user" who brought it up.
    The content does not reference wikipedia and the article as a whole is considerably more detailed and provides a great deal more information than the wiki blurb.
    The source list for the article is as follows (none of which are the wiki, and no the article is not based off the wiki as you so boldly asserted).
    Sources http://www.spanielsinthefield.com/library-05.asp http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dogs/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Norfolk-Spaniel.html http://chestofbooks.com/animals/dogs/British-Dog-Shows/Chapter-XXVIII-The-Spaniels.html http://books.google.com/books?id=Pj8DAAAAQAAJ&pg=PA109&lpg=PA109&dq=norfolk+spaniel+stonehenge&source=bl&ots=IMfkglsFZ_&sig=f5AU-aWfvAOmVlZ_BlFyVCIab58&hl=en&sa=X&ei=SHtrT6HAE9OmsAKAxsXyBQ&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=6EI8K_udJwIC&pg=PA477&lpg=PA477&dq=history+of+the+norfolk+spaniel&source=bl&ots=HjjS4BTHGa&sig=33Xc3TbRmwChvtidDDiZThhDyLc&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lHtrT9W4PK_ksQKizqj_BQ&ved=0CDcQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=history%20of%20the%20norfolk%20spaniel&f=false — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.78.128.207 (talk) 13:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
    Additionally it should be noted that my edit has stood and the user who commented on it has conceded the point that it is not based off the wiki as I was kind enough to provide a source list for the article. This is nothing more than an attempt by Dodo to dig dirt, and try and cast an insidious light upon a good faith edit and one that has already been discussed and closed out by two other individuals.
    Google analytics ID for easypetmd.com is the same as that for pawsdogdaycare.com. Clickbank ID for pawsdogdaycare.com is zeroyon.[5]
    Not sure what the point of this is, other than trying to build a non existent case. I mean seriously if we could all spend this much time and effort trying to improve upon the wiki instead of trying to out people it would be a much better information repository. Congrats, Dodo you have established that I am associated with a pet care business, (I already stated that in my little wiki bio page, although I did not put the name of the business for the sake of anonymity). Thank you for confirming that I work day in and day out with dogs. Additionally before you pull my credit report, or have a private investigator tail me I also tell you I'm a Pisces, a 10 year veteran of the United States Marine Corps, entered initially as a Combat Engineer and later laterally moved to EOD where I worked with the State Department as part of Colin Powells Secret Service detail. From there I went into training dogs for explosive detection, I'm married, no kids, 8 dogs, have a bachelor’s degree in Canine Studies, have worked at the community college level, have worked with the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission, on the board for the Animal Welfare League,etc. Additionally you can use your sleuth skills to gimme a call if you like.
    And here's pawsdogdaycare working their page ranking
    Really? look at the date in the URL, additionally it showed page not found when I clicked on it, and every other blog entry there is likewise dated in the 2007 range with nothing more recent. Dodo stop digging for the smoking gun in something that is 5 years old and trying to push it to the for front of this debate like it's relevant ..
    Me asking him to declare conflict of interest and note that his source doesn't meet WP:RS standard, plus his replies.[6] His reply is that the source is reliable because the articles are high quality("You are more than welcome to read through the texts before making a declarative judgement without properly evaluating the source and quality of the source of its entirety"), and they contain excellent original research.("(the articles) kicks back to and references the great authors of the past; Shaw, Kimble, Cauis etc. using their arguments, observations and assertions to formulate excellent theories and make previously overlooked connections")
    Why yes I did say the above and I stand by the statement, not sure what Dodo is trying to get at here. Also in the referenced conversation Dodo also contends that each referenced article should have the personal information of the author posted prominently by it so he or somebody can judge their credibility and/or run a background check I don't know. I can tell you the site DOES NOT allow user submitted articles, that each article is reviewed by more than one professional editor, that the content is written by someone who is an "expert" on the topic matter. I mean would Dodo be this upset if Stephen Hawking started making edits to pages pertaining the universe and using his previous lectures and such as references? He's an expert in his field, Cynology however, does not tend to carry the clout that figuring out the mysteries of the universe does. Additionally this is not a criminal trial and there is no I have to step down as it is "a conflict of interest". I am improving the articles not depreciating them or damaging them in any other way. I am also attentive and have made edits to a few articles (Akita Inu) "requested by other wiki admins" who saw no problem with the reference material. I have also had users thank me for providing useful information.
    Additionally as I told Dodo I could spend hours going through and pulling all the junk links, and garbage references out of every breed article and post them in one place for him to compare to the refs that I have submitted. If we want to compare apples to apples and judge the quality of the sources presented in the breed articles lets start lining up citations from articles and deleting all (and the accompanying text) that Dodo feels are suspect. The result would be half the articles would be gone. I have even come across breed articles with NO CITATIONS at all, which according to wiki policy, based upon a complete lack of references, the article should not even exist. Some of which have been that way for years, pure unreferenced speculation. I find it odd that I take an interest in the breeds and spend a ton of time fixing them and improving upon them and it really upsets Dodo. I don't know why, I tried to be civil and discuss the issue with him but he chose to escalate it here and is the only person out of the millions of wiki users that view those pages that has chose to make an issue out of it. As I stated other wiki editors (admins) have viewed the changes, suggested changes, and accepted them and the source. So again I don't know why Dodo seems so hell bent to run me away from the Wiki. Promote me, I'll be a dog breed expert on here.
    To Dodo, not sure what I did to miff you, but whatever it was I apologize and I'm sure it is not so egregious that it is going to justify the time spent bantering back and forth in here over the issue. So for, however, I wronged you I apologize and if you would ever like to collaborate on an article or have dog breed related questions I would be more than happy to help you out with them. But this whole issue here is getting blown out of proportion and wasting a ton of my time, and again souring me to the wiki.
    Correct me if I am wrong but is the Wiki not about trying to build encyclopedic content on various topics through contributions from users around the world? --Rick ( Zeroyon01 (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2012 (UTC) )[reply]
    easypetmd.com
    Financial incentive;
    Adsense google_ad_client = pub-4240102933333679 (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • meta: Track - Report)
    Additionaly;
    • Appears to have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially user submitted or self-published
    • easypetmd.com Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Spam Accounts;
    IP's and Account exist for the sole and primary purpose to populate articles with the Adsense website easypetmd.com , and all have little or no edits outside adding that site. Evidence such as the wholesale replacement of all existing references within articles are never signs of good faith.  Looks like a duck to me--Hu12 (talk) 01:28, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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


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

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

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

    jetsetmag.com

    Spam pages
    Sites spammed
    Spammers
    See also

     Defer to Local blacklist MER-C 06:34, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Accelerize New Media, Inc

    Google Analytics ID
    UA-2088528 - (Track - Report - reverseinternet.com • Meta: Track - Report)

    secfilings.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.secfilings.com

    Spam accounts

    --Hu12 (talk) 12:40, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.hardinfo-benchmark.com + others

    Rally24 (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) Adding links to low-content sites. Started again after 1st batch reverted - SimonLyall (talk) 12:02, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Rlstunnel.org

    Chris24Ro (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)
    Warez spammer abusing Wikipedia to boost page rank. — ThePowerofX 20:49, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Template for Russia Today

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

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

    Hi AerobicFox, and thank you for inviting me here to participate in the discussion.
    If I may try to answer your questions, looking over them I guess I'd start with the ones that are easiest for me to answer first.
    • Q. "How is Russia Today a better source for the Tohoko earthquake over any of the numerous Japanese newspapers that are written in English?"
      • A. I can't find any that can be organized into such a 'single link motherload' like this. comment I would really appreciate your assistance because I can't find anything 1/4 as good as this. If my mathematical skills are good enough, I counted more than 100 articles about the Japanese earthquake, and if you can find one that gives me just a few dozen links I would much appreciate it. I have long wanted to make new templates, as well as add to this template other useful sources besides Russia Today. If NHK or tbs have a similar page, I've yet to see it and would love to include it. I have asked as best I can for help in this matter, to find more sources that can assist in this endeavor, as it is wikipedia policy that we try to counter Bias where we can.
    • Q. What is the purpose for this template other than to spam links to a specific news organization?
      • A. I was sure I put this into the template documentation, let me check. here it is.
      • Creates a Russia Today trends search link for the supplied term. By default, the search link is for the Russia Today trends index page. The template is designed to assist editors on topics where domestic news services may not cover a topic in depth, or assist an article to comply with Neutral point of view policy, avoid bias, or in cases where the topic has a national link and widespread interest in Russia.
      • I have added the following summary from the lede of the RT article, as the wikilink I provided from the start doesn't seem to have made things clear enough.
    RT, previously known as Russia Today, is a government-funded global multilingual television news network based in the Russian Federation. It was founded in 2005 as Russia Today by the government-owned RIA Novosti. Please read the wikipedia article for more information about RT, including controversy and Bias.
    If that is still not sufficient, then I can maybe copy more of the article into the template doc, or even start fixing the article up a little.
    • comment/question in regards to "potential to become spammy" should things be judged on what they are, or on their potential ? I would have thought it was the former, however I'm no expert of this topic.
    • In regards to "promoting one news source is already biased and this could easily just be used as a way to spam links to a news site." that is precisely what has happened here, a lot of my thought went along the lines of 'Google is a corporate news service with it's corporate agenda, so if it has a search template then obviously a major government news service would clearly at least match it, whilst others would suggest that a government run rather than corporate run news service has less bias.. In regards to google settings, I haven't ever seen a button or widget that can switch off google's bias. is there one, or, is google not biased ?
    • I'm not paid to edit the 'wik, I do it for free, if you know of anyone paying money to do what I am doing, please, sign me up, I'd love to get rich quick. I found RT because of including the Mars500 project into my favorite article, the ISS, and after all the searching I had done for Mars500, when I came across this site, I just had to share it so others could get as much assistance. It's in like more than 50 article talkpages now, and until now, it had one 'this is spam' revert, which the person didn't elaborate on at all, and one other removal, which, after I enquired on that editors talkpage, they examined the template and then gave me incredible technical assistance and improved the wording of the documentation a great deal. Clearly, it still needs a lot of work to improve it's presentation, and if you can tell me where there are links to Japanese newspapers that would be an awesome help, I search Japanese topics a great deal, for the Kibo ISS module, HTV white stork robot spaceship that brings cargo to the station, and the JAXA space program, I haven't found the English speaking newspapers online that you speak of, if you could give me just one that is one tenth as good as teh RT banner I would be so very grateful. If you can find one that I can use in a single link fashion to a trend page same as this with 14 the stories, I'd be absolutely astonished. Penyulap ☏ 05:02, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Nagaqueen13:

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

    (cur | prev) 16:21, 13 December 2011‎ Nagaqueen13 (talk | contribs)‎ . . (26,608 bytes) (+6,125)‎ . . (→‎Temperament) (undo) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeroyon01 (talk • contribs)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=487028046"