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
Requestion (talk | contribs)
5,316 edits
→Domain-Specific Modeling: single entity, internal links are good, informative courtesy messages.
Line 181: Line 181:




=== PLEASE STOP INDISCRIMINATE MASS DESTRUCTION ===


Hi guys, I see Requestion erased the whole debate "PLEASE STOP INDISCRIMINATE MASS DESTRUCTION" as well as the debate about the SPAM STAR, without an consensus being reached in the conflict with Workforall Staff. I believe that is vandalism.
What is the purpose ?
:1. Shall I restore the whole discussion or shall we restart the debate from zero ?
:2. I saw some of your conspirors also systhematically erase comments on the Administrators'noticeboard.
Dou you think the amdinistrators would appreciate that if they found out ?

Advocate For Free Speech nr 006 on behalf of WWFA staff and BullY-Buster.


== Domain-Specific Modeling ==
== Domain-Specific Modeling ==

Revision as of 12:45, 2 June 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]


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]
I'm sorry I offended you with my template. However, you have now falsely accused me of adding inappropriate external links to wikipedia. On what basis do you make this accusation? Quadpus 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have reverted this [2] spam edit three times now. I don't care about the text but that link is likely to be blacklisted. It is too early to say for sure because I'm still connecting all the dots. So far the publicintegrity.org picture I see is a whole lot of WP:SPAM, WP:SOAPBOX'ing, and a lack of WP:NPOV. This just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. (Requestion 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Should I care what you see you "connect the dots" on publicintegrity.org? The text and citation I re-added were entirely appropriate and calling me a spammer is out of line. Answer this: If some intern at the NY Times went around adding citations to articles, would you take it on yourself to remove every citation of the NY Times? Quadpus 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Calling me a vandal was out of line. You have no idea how much trouble you caused by adding that {{uw-delete2}} tag above. Take a look at my talk page. I deal with a lot of angry spammers and you stirred up a hornets nest. You should care what I see when I "connect the dots" because it could result in publicintegrity.org being blacklisted which would make this whole conversation moot. To answer your question; if a NY Times intern ran amok and added 100 NY Times references to Wikipedia articles then I would delete them. You might not like this particular solution but it is the suggested procedure.
Your removal [3] of a warning I placed on User_talk:Aquemini almost qualifies as borderline vandalism. Like I said at User_talk:Quadpus#publicintegrity.org_spam; Normally I Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars but if you continue behaving this way I'm going to make an exception. (Requestion 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
When you gave a spam3 warning to Aquemini, someone who has not made any contributions since their first warning, and who had agreed after that warning not to add any more inappropriate links. I assumed you didn't notice all this, and made the warning in good faith, but perhaps I was wrong. Removing spam is a noble goal, but in my opinion, you are stepping over the line. Quadpus 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Many spam fighters would of started User:Aquemini off with a spam4 warning due to the shear volume of spamming so in that sense I could be considered generous. It is also important to remember that the spam and vandalism warnings are transferable across IP addresses, sock accounts, companies, and organizations depending on the circumstances. Now I have a question for you; how did you know about the warning I gave Aquemini and why did you even care enough to revert it? Aquemini was a one-day WP:SPA and it doesn't look like your paths ever crossed. (Requestion 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Notability of software

As you seem to have doubts about the notability of Hugin (software), can I ask you what your criteria for notability in free software are? Rl 08:39, 10 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My reply is over at Talk:Hugin_(software)#Notability. (Requestion 13:23, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hugin_(software) with a strange rational. Not sure what is going on but several panorama stitchers have been nominated for AfD. Looks like some sort of covert battle is underway. (Requestion 18:20, 16 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

S-Parameters

Hello Requestion,

I added a hyperref to an Agilent application note at the bottom of the S-Parameters page, under the bibliography. I didn't add the reference itself, I simply made it clickable, having read the article and looked up the reference. The app-note is relevant and helpful, as it goes into more detail than the wiki page. It's also a freely available referencable source, for the academics out there. I'm in no way related to Agilent, and the app-note doesn't try to sell any particular product. You removed the link and posted a warning on my talk page. Having read the wiki pages in the warning, I don't really understand why it was removed. Are all links to commercial sites bad? Arthurtech 18:20, 10 May 2007 (UTC) (formerly known as 86.21.13.156).[reply]

No, links to commercial sites are fine. There were two reasons why I deleted that link. The first is that we're having a huge problem with Agilent link spam. The second reason is that WP:EL says to avoid linking to documents that require special software such as .PDF files. Sorry about the warning message, I'm going to cross it out right now. (Requestion 18:46, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Professional Sound Production

Hello there! I've noticed that you've been making some significant contributions to Professional sound production related articles. You might be interested in joining the Professional sound production WikiProject, where you can participate in a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the technology, equipment, companies and professions related to professional sound production.

GoldengloveContribs ·Talk 12:40, 11 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the invite. I'll check out WP:PSP. (Requestion 16:03, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You reverted a longstanding version of the introduction. Please do not do it again. See the talk page for the diffs that prove it. Many people, including yourself, seem to be confusing external links with citation/reference links. I notice from your user contributions that you may been confused by this for a long time. --Timeshifter 01:11, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted to the version that has been stable for the past 12 days. I'm not confused. Both WP:EL and WP:CITE deal with external links. (Requestion 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You currently appear to be engaged in an edit war according to the reverts you have made on Wikipedia:External links. Note that the three-revert rule prohibits making more than three reversions in a content dispute within a 24 hour period. Additionally, users who perform a large number of reversions in content disputes may be blocked for edit warring, even if they do not technically violate the three-revert rule. If you continue, you may be blocked from editing. Please do not repeatedly revert edits, but use the talk page to work towards wording and content which gains a consensus among editors. --Timeshifter 01:40, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well if I'm close to exceeding 3RR then you've broken it since Jossi has already reverted you twice. (Requestion 01:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
24 hour block for User_talk:Timeshifter#3RR_on_WP:EL. Released early due to effective wikilawyering but was then autoblocked. (Requestion 18:03, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The block was overturned because it was incorrect. The admin apologized too. --Timeshifter 00:18, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Company7

May I put in a good word for the Company7 website its self. It does maintain an online "museum" of sorts that is a good reference for telescope related articles (I use it a lot my self for such topics). Their reference section seems to meet WP:EL requirements as far as not having obtrusive advertising. Too bad this person who claims to own the place went on a spam offensive. Don't want to sound wishy-washy.... just saying if it comes to a decision of weather bothering to keep them in the blocking queue or not I would say drop them out. Halfblue 03:51, 17 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Martin just spammed a couple other articles today and bumped himself to the front of the queue. It's a lot bigger than just the Questar page. I've lost count of how many articles have been spammed and how many times the final warning has been violated. Why couldn't he listen to everybody's advice and follow the WP:RULES? Company7 has become a huge waste of time and that's why the blocking and blacklisting procedures exist. (Requestion 20:45, 17 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I am not sure what you meant by front of the queue. I have done all I thought I needed to do to prove the articles are not spam and I have registered to facilitate whatever authentication Wikipedia seems to prefer (I am learning in part through the patient education by some who have edited my contributions).

You Requestion are really setting yourself to be the Inquisition or arbiter of truth and justice, and I think doing it poorly. The fact is thaty any entire article about a company involved in making things for sale, and the linking to their web site can be considered Spam by your definition. I have linked to pages that have nothing to sell anyone. While sites that are more about history and antique instruments such as the Library that my company happens to give of our time and effort to collect, restore, document and illustrate, then host these items on line are done as a public service. I thought it very flattering that Wikipedia chose to take content (albeit without atrribution) from my several sites and use the info to make the Wikipedia articles meet whatever standard you judge them by. You have no real idea what you are talking about when you talk about Company Seven, and Winkipedia policies - if you are enforcing them to the letter seem inconsistent and shortchange truth and balance just as I pointed out several time in the Discussion section of the Questar site.

I have also worked (as a hobby) to create and pay to host (also under my company web site) the site "BosendorferImperial.com", a site dedicated to that particular model of piano. I have nothing to do with selling them or anything else, and I have gathered so much fact that the articles about Bosendorfer too would have to delete several more facts if Wikipedia is to comply with legal Copyright policies. I would prefer to have you or a higher authority look over those sites to see if they are spam or just downright good and informative reading.

I don't care about selling anything at Company7.com. We do not have on line ordering, don't need the consumer business to do well, etc. But we do operate that shop and the web sites with profits from our Government work as a public service. In fact it has qualified as a non-profit organization but I choose not to take the tax dodge. Most of what is in that showroom is not for sale at all, since most of it is museum. By those standards, I can not see how you can write articles about companies, and not permit links to helpful articles as I host. And I do not see how Wikipedia can link to sites that are not as technically accurate as mine, and yet not even bother to mention a page at Company7 when it is used as a reference.

Now get on with your blocking, but first give me the opportunity to advise what to cut from those articles so that Wikipedia does not infringe on our copyrights.

OOPS! and sorry about the repeated, numerous edits - I keep forgetting to try the Show Preview option; darn and I was just starting to learn Wikipedia. Martincc 9:21 ET 18 May 2007 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Martincc (talk • contribs)

OK, I will do as you wish. I have a question. Three editors have spent a lot of time attempting to explain the Wikipedia rules to you. Why do you keep breaking them? Do you not understand them? Or do you think the rules don't apply to you? (Requestion 19:52, 19 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

selective censorship

Why are only _some_ external links removed? I had a link to my website offering a free service just below others also linking external pages with free warez... mine is deleted, others are not! Why? What makes some worthy and others not? I didn't know wikipedia was only for _some_ companies use... Do I have to donate to wikipedia, is that it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wlanmac (talk • contribs)

WP:SPAM#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. (Requestion 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yet, why wouldn't you just also remove other links of the exact nature right above? Sorry, I am just trying to understand what the difference is... I can deal with rules, but the selective enforcement of them is annoying. And, why is this spam exactly? Your saying its cool for McAfee to link to free software that is designed for their commercial service, but uncool to link to a similar service that is for free? Wlanmac 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I simply don't have time to remove every single piece of spam in every article I edit. You spammed multiple articles with your website. All I did was selectively clean this up. You shouldn't be adding links to your own website in the first place as that is a conflict of interest (WP:COI). I have no opinion about that McAfee external link. If you think it is spam then you should delete it. (Requestion 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wikipedia is edited and censored to conform to the likes of select few individuals who have nothing better to do than sit and play internet cops, judges, and juries. No sense arguing with them...they won't give you any logical explanations for their actions. They don't have any to give. They manipulate the rules to fit their agendas and like the power rush it gives them to hit the revert button. Regardless of the contributions you make, they won't stick. It's not worth wasting your time over. The "editors" get little "badges" and pats on the back when they make a massive amount of edits. This just further encourages them to remove even valid contributions without any consideration. To illustrate, I added two different book references....BOOK REFERENCES...***linking them to Wikibooks*** and they were removed. One removal was done by Requestion. Both were directly related to the articles they were placed in and both considered to be respectable books by those with any knowledge of the subjects. There was no good reason to remove them...and the one that Requestion personally removed was later added back by another "power editor" who stated, "Put back the book. It's cited all over the place." Wikipedia started out as a good idea...but went terribly wrong when people like Requestion and a few others got involved. Now it's just disturbing and sad. Darladeer 10:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer[reply]
This has nothing to do with censorship. Wikipedia has rules. I suggest reading WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. Why can't you people understand that it's a conflict of interest to add external links to your own website? That's one reason why WP:EL says to avoid "links mainly intended to promote a website." The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a web directory advertisement service. Also, the addition of external links is not considered contribution. You know, it really pains me to see people suffer like this. Learn the rules, follow the rules, live a happier life. (Requestion 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Wikibook links are external???? Not to mention, the one you removed was cited in the reference section of that very article. You're incredibly sloppy in your edits. It's your impulsive and compulsive editing that devalues Wikipedia. Then, when someone questions you, your answer is to try to enlist the help from other editors to force them out of Wikipedia -- "Hello Arcadian. This user is giving me problems too. Any help in guiding User:Darladeer down the path of WP:GRIEF would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (Requestion 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC))" -- User_talk:Arcadian#Revert -- How in the world was I giving Arcadian "problems"? Because I asked for the reasoning behind removing a book reference that links to Wikibooks???? It's obvious that you don't have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. Darladeer 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer[reply]
What's a "wikibook?" Where is that "Julia Lawless" book cited in the references section? I don't see it. About Arcadian; look at all the grief you're causing me about that book, I was trying to be supportive. (Requestion 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Do you think there are two people named Julia Lawless in the aromatherapy/essential oil field? What are the odds? Even if you think there might be, how long does it take to confirm? Same goes for where the book linked to...follow the link you removed for the book...see where it leads you. I would suggest that if you don't have time to do it right (or won't take the time), don't do it. Again, it's your sloppiness (and arrogance) that bothers me.
As for your "supportive" comment...my entire comment to Arcadian was "Kindly explain why you made the revert on the additions I made to the tea tree oil page. Darladeer 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer" as he did not make any note of why he reverted the book addition (it is a book specifically on tea tree oil and, again, the link was ***internal***). I asked the question in a respectable manner. Not sure why you felt he needed support? How odd (and, again, disturbing).Darladeer 04:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer[reply]
I still don't see that "Julia Lawless" book cited in the references section of the List of essential oils article. I do see ref #17 but that is a Lavendar oil book with a different ISBN. That amazon.com link really should be deleted or changed to an ISBN, but that's a different issue. So much spam to clean up, so little time. (Requestion 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


h*ttp://Workforall.net Contibutions : Statement

For context see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#workforall.net.

Work and Wealth for All is a leading an well respected think-tank in Brussels (Belgium). They are engaged in a number of socio-economic studies in close collaboration with " Free Institute for Economic Research (FIFER). Their research into the causes of European growth differentials have resulted in scientific publications as well as a great number of socio-economic essays for a wider public covering subjects such as The Irish economic miracle, The Scandinavian Social Model, Tax burden, Tax structure, Big Government, Inflation, VAT, the Sustainabibity of the European Welfare State, Social Models, Monetary subjects etc. Their web-site provides free access to worldwide data sources as well as to masterpieces of economic literature and is purely informative. Economists, econometrists, entrepreneurs and philosophers contributed to their research. All their services are free, and free of commercial advertising. Their publications are well doccumented and verifiable indicating sources of data used.

All contributions WWFA staff submitted to Wikipedia over the last two years are covered by their research and the quality was never disputed. A group of self declared span-fighters recently vandalised all WWFA contributions without gaining consent, and without giving justification for their qualification “span” other than the mere number of contributions. The attack seems to be part of a gang operation randomly vandalising high quality submissions of hundreds of bona fide contributors.

The statement above is issued by authortity of the Advocates For Free Speech in an emergency effort to interrupt a proces of ongoing damage to the reputation and interests of their clients h*ttp://workforall.net.

Any effort to erase this declaration or to change its content while the case is still pending will be considered as participation in a gang deliberately attempting to inflict damage to the interest and/or reputation of their clients, and will be treated as such. Please note that erasing content on talk pages is qualified vandalism as to Wikipedia procedures, and that participation in a gang involves solidary responsability.

The list of alledged offenses below was established by self declared “judges” with no authority whatsoever to establish such list. Nor was the victim given any opportunity for his defense. Users are kindly invited to ignore the list.

Should You have comments on this statement you are kindly invited to participate in the debates. You can read the fundamentals of this case here User_talk:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech (permanent link).

[User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech] 22.05.2007--The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech 15:43, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've blocked this guy (sue me). I also considered removing this 'statement'. But I almost think you're starting to enjoy this whole thing. :) Femto 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sue you? Is that a legal threat? Are you threatening me? I demand to see some badges. What no badges? How can you expect anyone to respect your authority if you don't have any stinking badges? I'm going to report you! (Requestion 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Anonymous IP claims Workforall think tank repudiates workforall.net domain and spamming

See this note posted on User:BozMo's talk page:

Public workforall.net registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120
owner-organization: P. Vreymans
owner-fname: MFPH
owner-lname: Geurts
owner-city: Wingene
owner-zip: 8750
owner-country: BE

Public workforall.org registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst
Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv
Registrant City:Leuven
Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010
Registrant Country:BE

--A. B. (talk) 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks User:A. B.. The fog clears, slightly, we need to help in this disambiguation. It is time to Requestion 17:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC)![reply]


PLEASE STOP INDISCRIMINATE MASS DESTRUCTION

Hi guys, I see Requestion erased the whole debate "PLEASE STOP INDISCRIMINATE MASS DESTRUCTION" as well as the debate about the SPAM STAR, without an consensus being reached in the conflict with Workforall Staff. I believe that is vandalism. What is the purpose ?

1. Shall I restore the whole discussion or shall we restart the debate from zero ?
2. I saw some of your conspirors also systhematically erase comments on the Administrators'noticeboard.
  Dou you think the amdinistrators would appreciate that if they found out ?

Advocate For Free Speech nr 006 on behalf of WWFA staff and BullY-Buster.

Domain-Specific Modeling



Thanks for trying to keep the Domain-Specific Modeling topic free from spam. Unfortunately, you've deleted central references rather than spam. MetaCase's MetaEdit+ is simply the best-known DSM tool, better known than Microsoft DSL Tools or Eclipse EMF/GMF - let alone things like GEMS. This is confirmed by independent surveys. There are over 50 scientific articles published on it, numerous awards etc. The external reference has been there since the very first version of the article, which was NOT written by MetaCase.

The DSM Forum is an independent body of the major parties in this topic: MetaCase, Microsoft, Xactium, GME, Eclipse openArchitectureWare, etc. It shares an IP with MetaCase's site because MetaCase agreed to host it at the founding meeting. The content comes from all members, and points to all members' work. Removing it from here is nonsensical.

If Wikipedia goes the way of killing links to commercial entities, but leaving or promoting links to non-commercial or open source, it is distorting the truth. Regardless of whether you like MetaEdit+ or MetaCase, leaving them out of an article on DSM is incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.209.12.111 (talk • contribs)

Hello User:193.209.12.111, User:Steven Kelly, or whoever you are. Why have you been spamming metacase.com and dsmforum.org external links to multiple Wikipedia articles? I see that Steven Kelly is the CTO of MetaCase and co-founder of the DSM Forum. This isn't about commercial vs. non-commercial links or my opinion of MetaEdit+. This is about self-promotion, sorry but that's a WP:COI and WP:SPAM. (Requestion 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi, yes that was me, just forgot to sign. Like I said, I did not add the links, so how on earth can that be WP:COI? The links were there in the first version, which neither I nor anyone else associated with the organizations wrote. I'll certainly reinstate links when you remove them, just like I will happily reinstate links to tools I am not associated with. The key issue is value to readers. Steven Kelly 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please see WP:SPAM. I'm impressed at how quick you reverted me, it took you only 10 hours but your previous Wikipedia edit was more than 5 months before. You must be keeping a close eye on your links? I also noticed that you created the MetaEdit+ article so I am putting a {{coi>> tag on it. (Requestion 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I've told you twice I didn't add those links, nor do I know who did. If the person lives in Finland, do you really think you should be jumping to conclusions that it's me? That's a 1 in 5 million chance... and you're wrong. Please remove the above insinuation against the good name of that user. You're accusing them of spamming, when they added a link to a company they have no connection with.
As to my editing behavior: no, I don't keep close tabs on the DSM page. I drop by every now and then to check the history, but basically the page has been pretty stable for a while, and seems to give a well-rounded view of the topic.
And what's this about spamming multiple entries?! All I did was change a couple of existing mentions of MetaEdit+ on other pages to be links to the MetaEdit+ page, since I understand wikifying to be good behavior. Without those Wiki links, people would just use Google to come straight to our company pages, so those changes were hardly what a spammer would do :).
As for the MetaEdit+ page itself, sure, I created it. There's no fatal conflict of interest issue in that per se, only if it offends NPOV. If the topic is not sufficiently noteworthy, that's a separate issue, not COI. As COI puts it: "Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. ... Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to". So, please remove the tag, and instead comment on the talk page if you feel parts of the content slip from a NPOV. Steven Kelly 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I wonder who added these [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] external links? I don't think the SPA you refer to cares about any insinuations against their good name. What you call "wikifying" we call nuturing, cultivating, and funneling of external links. About the COI tag, its purpose is to warn potential editors of a possible conflict of interest. The COI tag stays for the time being until we figure out what's going to happen to that page. (Requestion 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please slow down and look more carefully at the evidence. For the DSM page, you're simply wrong. The original poster of the links, 212.149.217.232, is unknown to me and unrelated to the target of those links, so they cannot possibly be spam. Please remove the insinuation above that he/she is spamming. They did not post any of the external links 4-9 above.
I see from 4 of the 6 external links you list that someone from behind our company firewall (IP 193.209.12.111) has added external links to other pages than DSM on 15-22.5.07. As soon as I saw your original revert to DSM I emailed people in the company to tell them not to add links, and that I would handle this. Only now do I see from the above external links that that employee had also added links elsewhere. The person in question is new to our company and Wikipedia, and presumed from the presence of other vanity links on those pages that they were acceptable. He now knows better, and my thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since this was a newbie, the topics were clearly related to our company and/or the DSM Forum, and there were only a few, I think we can agree on AGF here.
My comments about "wikifying" related purely to the MetaEdit+ page. Since MetaEdit+ was mentioned by independent sources without a link on several pages, I added a short NPOV MetaEdit+ page, and wikified those references to it. Making the references links is clearly wikifying, and completely different from adding new external links (or changing uses of the word MetaEdit+ into external links, which I would perceive as being a poorer solution). The MetaEdit+ page itself stands or falls on its own merits.
So, there are several issues here, and three posters (212.149.217.232, Steven Kelly, 193.209.12.111). I suggest as a solution: 1) the links by 212.149.217.232 to MetaCase and the DSM Forum are added back to the DSM page, since they are relevant, clearly called for by a NPOV and notability (check Google), and were added by someone unrelated to the organizations. 2) The external links added to other pages recently by 193.209.12.111 remain removed, but the SPAM tag on my user page is removed - I didn't add them. 3) The MetaEdit+ page goes through the normal process to confirm notability and NPOV. If it passes, we look for a less aggressive method of indicating its origins than a COI tag. Steven Kelly 08:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The 212.149.217.232 IP is a low edit SPA and I'm sure they don't mind any insinuations. So for all practical purposes the 3 accounts are grouped together and treated as a single entity. Yes, I agree that adding internal links is very different than external links. Internal links are good and external links are bad in this particular case. The only reason I mentioned it is because funneling and cultivating show that something interesting might be going on, that's all. Also, that isn't a spam tag on your page, it's a courtesy message and it's very informative. This situation a perfect example why WP:COI advises against adding links and creating pages to your own websites. (Requestion 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

List of emulators

Hi there! You marked this page as containing spam. Could you give me an example of a spam link? I am more than willing to help find and clean spam! --Gortu 03:38, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Hello Gortu. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links (see WP:NOT#LINK) and that page has a huge number of them. Converting those external links into internal links would be a good solution. Deleting the those external links and moving them to the talk page or even commenting them out with HTML would also be good solution. (Requestion 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
Hi there. Would you agree that I generate stub articles for each emulator? In the meantime, I'll comment out the links. --Gortu 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, commenting out the external links is a great idea. Stubs are a good solution but do careful with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. I personally like stub articles as long as they are not spammy and promotional. (Requestion 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]



If you disagree, you disagree i guess. But did you at least look at the discussion on User talk:Careercornerstone that i mentioned in my edit summary? What exactly (beyond referring me generally to WP:EL) is wrong with the link? I felt a little foolish for removing all those, after looking at the site and seeing that it would be pretty useful for someone reading those articles. --barneca (talk) 20:50, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's OK, don't feel foolish, you did the right thing. Yes I read the discussion User talk:Careercornerstone and I even left a comment. There are a couple problems with that careercornerstone.org link but the biggest problem is the conflict of interest as they are promoting themselves. So it appears to be a violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. I found it interesting watching the edit ripple this caused. Quite a few editors jumped in to delete that link. (Requestion 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Yeah, I've found similar occurances to be entertaining reading in the past, and sometimes read WP:ANI for it's sheer entertainment value; but it's not quite as fun when you're involved. I still feel bad. After interacting with that user a little, I can't help but feel that even if removal was appropriate, we (and by "we" I mean "me" most of all, but everyone else that left fairly harsh edit summaries) didn't AGF, and were pretty rude to an incorrect but good faith new editor. I doubt they'll be back. At the very least, I think I'll try to be more specific than a flippant "see WP:EL" in my edit summary in the future, and indeed, I think I'll swear off EL reverting completely. --barneca (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This sort of blanket spamming happens more often than you would think. Your detailed edit summary was a good idea and it probably prevented some hasty editor from slapping some {{spam}} warnings on your talk page! I agree WP:SPAM sort of contradicts WP:AGF but it is important to remember that "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." The most polite thing to do when deleting spam is to use the "undo" button without any comment but that creates the problem of not being descriptive. I create custom edit summaries which are a lot of work but they have the advantage of trackability and accountability. Check out WT:WPSPAM if you're interested in fighting spam, you might even want to join. (Requestion 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Do you realize that in this edit you removed the only non-broken link from the list that was non-commercial? WP:COI is only a guideline, not a policy. The guideline doesn't say "don't", but "avoid, or exercise great caution" and "we very strongly encourage you". It does not provide a licence to revert edits covered by that guideline. The clause that seems most pertinent is the disapproval of "Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links)." In my judgement this clause does not apply to the link in question. I am not affiliated with the Sloan Career Cornerstone Center, nor do I know anyone affiliated with that organization, and so, when I re-added the link, based on my judgement of its relevance and appropriateness, there was no issue of any conflict of interest, and even if the guideline of WP:COI had suggested that such edits should be reverted (which it does not), even then it would not have applied to my edit that you reverted.  --LambiamTalk 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying that all of the other links in the Career management article are broken? About the careercornerstone.org link, it was spam and spam gets deleted. (Requestion 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
One link was broken, the others seemed, on cursory examination, to be commercial.
You are not going to be very flexible about this, are you? I resent your implication that I am adding spam links to Wikipedia. I think you are misinterpreting the relevant guidelines, or applying them too strictly. The website in question is informative and offers relevant material to readers interested in the topic that we cannot incorporate into the article.  --LambiamTalk 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't say you were adding spam links, I said User:Careercornerstone was. And yes I am very unflexible about this. When I clean up a mass spamming I expect it to stay cleaned up. (Requestion 15:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You are inflexible in your private and particular interpretation of the rules. There is no rule that says that external links, even if fully appropriate, must be removed in case of a possible conflict of interest. There is even less of a rule that if a previously removed external link is re-instated by several editors in good standing, who have no such conflict of interest and who add the external link based on their considered judgement of its merits, it shall, must and will nevertheless remain removed, if necessary by indefinite reverts, to which task you have been called. Or did I miss something? In that case, please edify me.  --LambiamTalk 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You missed something. Let me ask, why do you care if that particular careercornerstone.org external link is included? (Requestion 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Because I think it is a valuable addition to the article.  --LambiamTalk 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I don't think it's a valuable addition to the article. In fact the careercornerstone.org domain is very likely to be blacklisted if it persists at being a problem. (Requestion 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In your eagerness to reply you forgot to tell me what I missed.  --LambiamTalk 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The conversation has moved over to the Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Mathematics#External_link_at_Mathematician page. (Requestion 23:30, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Your definition of Squiffycat spam

So despite the fact that external links are made with care, stay on topic and add value to the pages in question you consider it spam? What in your mind does not constitute spam? Making a page self promoting a company which is of little interest to anyone such as Penton Media I assume- shouldn't you be removing these external links? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Squiffycat (talk • contribs)

I'm confused. Do you mean that I shouldn't be adding Penton Media links? Or do you mean that you shouldn't be adding world-time-zones.org and metric-conversions.org domains? Self-promotion is a conflict of interest and that's a bad thing, see WP:COI for more information. (Requestion 00:15, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]



You marked wikipractice as a spam and I'm surprised. It is not a commercial site and does fit your external site policy. Did you ever had a look at the content of the linked pages ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.2.49.207 (talk • contribs)

Yes I looked at it. It doesn't make a difference if it's a non-commercial site. Wikipedia is not a place for you to advertise your website. Please see WP:COI. Note that WP:EL also says to avoid links to wikis. (Requestion 20:21, 26 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Wikipedia guidelines

I suggest you try to change the citation/reference guideline on its talk page. The Wikipedia:External links guideline does not cover citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 00:22, 28 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop violating WP:MULTI. I am getting tired of your relentless talk page spamming. (Requestion 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Requestion&oldid=135310703"