User talk:Requestion

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)

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))

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)

publicintegrity.org

• Special:Linksearch/*.publicintegrity.org

• Special:Contributions/64.185.17.138
• Special:Contributions/LesterFreamon [1]
• Special:Contributions/NewMachine
• Special:Contributions/YoBabyPop
• Special:Contributions/Aquemini
• Special:Contributions/StringBeller
• Special:Contributions/WhenEliMetLilly

---

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

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))

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)

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))

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

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))

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

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))

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

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))

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)

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)

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))

Level 2 VANDALISM and OBSTRUCTION of JUSTICE WARNING

This is a second degree formal warning on a scale of 3 levels.:

-

You and/or Your conspirors have vandalised talk pages and even a request for arbitration at the arbitration Request Page

The contributions history of 17 June 2007 of your conspiror User A._B. alone has 34 counts of qualified vandalism of WorkForAll contributions. This blanking without consent of the opponent party in this dispute has consequence of obstructing normal judicial procedures to come to a settlement in this case. Therefor your actions do not only constitute qualified vandalism as to Wiki:Etiquette, they also constitute qualified obstruction of justice.

As the vandalism seems to be part of large scale a cover-up operation and/or coordinated efforts of a conspiring gang to erase traces of earlier wrongful activities your vandalism can be considered as qualified participation in a criminal gang.

Participation in a criminal gang may involve your unlimited solidary responsibility and financial liability (as opposed to proportionate liability) should this conflict result in criminal proceedings in a later stage.

Request for arbitration in the WorkForAll versus Requestion case

Dear User, dear Wikipedia Arbitre,

An original request for arbitration in this case was initiated by WorkForAll on June 8, 2007. The request was almost immediately vandalised and erased form the arbitration request page even before an arbiter could give his advise. The "same request was again vandalised on 15.06.07 ". Therefore we bring the request to the attention of users and arbiters here again and ask arbiters to consider the case, and undo the tremendous damage to our reputation caused by members of the Spam Project.

Involved parties

-User:Bully-Buster-007 and his advocate after he got wrongfully blocked : User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech

Both representing the think tank “Work and wealth for all” in Brussels (Belgium)

versus

-User:Requestion, User:BozMo, User:Femto, User:A. B.

all members of a group of self-declared spam fighters

Other parties in the dispute were formally informed of this request.

Statement by WorkForAll.net

Workforall.net is a respected think tank in Brussels, involving economists, entrepreneurs and philosophers. They publish scientific research as well as economic essays for a wider public. WorkForAll regularly contributed to Wikipedia since 2005 with articles and links under economic titles covered by their research. WWFA staff contributed from different IP's in Belgium. During present discussion they created an account Bully Buster 007.

-

End April spam project member User:Requestion systematically blanked WWFA contributions and links without gaining consent. Early Mai WWFA complained and opened a thread “Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction" on Requestion's talk page.

Early in the debate WWFA agreed that contributions by different staff members had not been coordinated, and that some links were disputable. They excused, and proposed six times to reach consensus where the contributions were appropriate and where not. Although unsolicited third parties requested reversal of blankings, Requestion dismissed a consensus, providing as sole justification for giving all WWFA contributions the qualification "spam" the mere number of their contributions.

-

During the debate WWFA did not attempt to add new contributions, nor committed deliberate “offences" other than disputing Requestion's blankings. Still WorkForAll got illegitimately blocked and blacklisted during the debate obviously as punitive and not as preventive measures. Being wrongfully blocked, WorkForAll asked User:The-Advocates-For-Free-Speech to defend their interests. They were also blocked, and since then Requestion and his conspirers made further debate impossible by systematically blanking and blocking WorkForAll comments.

-

WorkForAll requests reversal of the blocking and blacklisting because blocking and blacklisting were based on disputable spamming accusations and because the modus operandi of Requestion and the spam project's are wrongfull:

• Requestion fails to provide justification for giving WorkForAlll’s contributions the qualification “Spam”. During the debate WorkForAll has argued that the spam fighters are misinterpreting WP regulations as according to a universal judicial principle of supremacy of conflicting rules the spam fighters should not be interpreting a general and suggestive WP:EL rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete WP:EL instruction "What to link:" is most explicit, affirmative and absolute in inviting to link the source in case the source is relevant and reliable, but cannot be summarized in an article. Requestion has not disputed this argument, but he has not undone his wrongfull erasals.

• Requestion is indiscriminately generalising single and disputable spamming to all of the users’ contributions (under the motto “once a spammer, always a spammer”), thereby blanking huge amounts of most valuable information.

The spam fighters also systematically use methods which are incompatible with Fair-play, with Wikipedia regulations and common law:

• The Spam fighter’s editing procedures constitutes qualified vandalism as they systematically blank well established content often amended and approved by many other users without gaining prior consent, thereby often disturbing neutrality.

• The systematic and coordinated blankings on talk pages disturb debates and constitute qualified vandalism]

• Some spam project members being self declared communists and/or Anti-West Islamists selectively censor content contrary to their ideology and disturb neutrality.
• The Spam fighter’s qualified intimidation is incompatible with 5 Pilars and cause grief to many bona fide contributors, much of which have run away from the excessive bullying, and the waring-out by the spam fighters.

Some of the methods of the spam fighters are fully contrary to fair-play and even constitute qualified crime as to common law:

• Spreading viruses through the WP Sandbox

• Deliberate misconduct to inflict maximal damage to the reputation of other users: After repeated formal warnings Requestion has continued to spread false accusations over Wikipedia, with the deliberate intend to fool search engines and spread slander about his opponents all over the internet and to ruin their victim's reputation.

- Requestion was remembered here that the qualification “spam” given to the WorkForAll contributions was based on a misinterpretation of WP regulations. Requestion did no longer dispute the arguments and even implicitely agreed that the accusations were false in this debate here..

- User:Requestion and User:.A_B. were very well ware of the damage they were inflicting to their victim’s reputation. Requestion was also remembered here that search engines were already picking up his false accusations, and about the process of damage to the WorkForAll reputation he had set in motion. Even after these explicit warnings, Requestion deliberately refused to stop his false accusations and stop the ongoing process of damage, which proves his bad faith

-In stead Requestion (or his conspirors) erased the warnings, and started conspiring on this talk page to stealthly introduce amendments on EL regulations. The attempt was however remarked by attentive users. [4]This started an edit war on the External Links page.] The conspiracy to change the EL code could only be partially stopped.

• Disclosure of WP user's name and address with the sole purpose of intimidating opponents and to have their victim’s name associated worldwide with spamming or wrongful activities constitutes a qualified assault on WP user's privacy

For all the reasons above we request Arbiters to agree with

• 1. the reversal of WorkForAll.net’s illegitimate blocking and blacklisting
• 2. the reversal and protection of WorkForAll.net’s wrongfully erased contributions and links
• 3. to agree to appropriate measures to remediate to the massive damage done to WorkForAll.net ‘s reputation as a respectable think tank such as publication of an excuse on the most visible places.
• 4. to agree to measures to prevent users acting in bad faith such as User:Requestion, User:BozMo, User:Femto and User:A. B. to repeat their destructive work.

Please see more evidence in this case at : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:The_Advocates_For_Free_Speech&diff=132799349&oldid=132721521

Thank You for considering the case.

On behalf of WWFA staff.

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

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

• User_talk:BozMo#disclaimer regarding the workforall spammer (Permanent link)

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)

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)!

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.52.29 (talk • contribs)

Get a clue. Who do you think has been deleting your messages on the ANI board and on my talk page? Administrators. Secondly, those old conversations were not deleted but have been archived here:

• User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Spamstar_of_Glory
• User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#workforall.net_linkspam
• User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction

They are in a read-only archive. Do not attempt to edit them. Instead reply here. (Requestion 20:26, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Domain-Specific Modeling

• Special:Linksearch/*.metacase.com - MetaCase Consulting, Jyvaskyla FIN-40500, FI
• Special:Linksearch/*.dsmforum.org - MetaCase Consulting, Jyvaskyla FIN-40500, FI

• Special:Contributions/Steven_Kelly - 4 linkspams, CTO of MetaCase and co-founder of the DSM Forum. +1 +1 0 +2
• Special:Contributions/193.209.12.111 - 7 linkspams, JSP Facilities Oy, Jyvaskyla, FI +1 +1 +2 +2 +1
• Special:Contributions/212.149.217.232 - 4 linkspams, Domain-Specific Modeling SPA, kpy.fi Broadband customers, FI +4

---

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))

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)

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))

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)

I wonder who added these [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] 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))

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)

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))

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)

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))

Careercornerstone link removal

• Special:Linksearch/*.careercornerstone.org

• Special:Contributions/Careercornerstone - 21 linkspams

---

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)

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))

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)

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))

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.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

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.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

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.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

Because I think it is a valuable addition to the article.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:02, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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))

In your eagerness to reply you forgot to tell me what I missed.  --Lambiam^Talk 19:32, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

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

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))

Wikipractice link removed

• Special:Linksearch/*.wikipractice.org - Guy Corbaz, Le Mont, VD, CH

• Special:Contributions/Gcorbaz - 7 linkspams
• Special:Contributions/85.1.100.243 - 1 linkspam
• Special:Contributions/85.2.55.232 - 1 linkspam
• Special:Contributions/85.2.49.207 - 0 linkspams
• Special:Contributions/85.1.106.56 - 0 linkspams, blanked this spam report

---

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))

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)

Please stop violating WP:MULTI. I am getting tired of your relentless talk page spamming. (Requestion 00:27, 28 May 2007 (UTC))

MSU Lossless Codec official site

Hello, please stop deleting the link to the official site of MSU Lossless Video Codec. A link to official site of articles's subject cannot be spam. Why do you keep deleting it? Every codec page in wikipedia has an external link to its site. Why MSU codec should be different? (Thedeemon 17:27, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

Hello Thedeemon. Stop spamming Wikipedia. That goes for you and all your other SPA's too. (Requestion 20:29, 3 June 2007 (UTC))

You're acting like bot removing every link to compression.ru and posting standard templates about spam. If you're human, I'm asking you to explain why do you consider a link to official site of article's subject to be spam. Why don't you delete links to Huffyuv or DivX sites? Why MSU codec is different? Please answer. (Thedeemon 07:58, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

Why didn't I delete the Huffyuv and DivX links? Because WP:SPAM#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. (Requestion 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

WP:EL#What_should_be_linked: "Articles about any organization, person, web site, or other entity should link to the official site if any." So a link to official site IS legal and is not spam. I appreciate your anti-spam activity and agreed with many your actions but in case of official sites you cross the borders of wikipedia rules and guidelines. (Thedeemon 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

The rules say that when someone spams, then to delete all the links that they spammed. That's what I did. (Requestion 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't have any SPA's. If you mean DmitryV, that's another person. My name is Dmitry Popov and he is Dmitry Vatolin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thedeemon (talk • contribs)

Both of you are SPA's. (Requestion 17:24, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

I can agree to call me and you SPA, but not him - he contributed a lot in data compression and video processing field. But that's offtopic anyway. (Thedeemon 04:55, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

He might of contributed a lot to the video processing field but all he has done on Wikipedia is contribute an incredible number of external links to his websites. The single purpose of his account was to spam Wikipedia and that makes him an SPA. (Requestion 05:11, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

List of mind mapping software

Welcome to Wikipedia. It might not have been your intention, but your recent contribution removed content from List of mind mapping software. Please be more careful when editing articles and do not remove content from Wikipedia without a good reason, which should be specified in the edit summary. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. If you would like to experiment again, please use the sandbox. Thank you.

The above warning message is from this standard template:

{{subst:uw-delete1|List of mind mapping software}}

found on this template compilation page:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

Here is the diff with your last blanking of the source/citation/reference links. --Timeshifter 08:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey requisition, just for the record, I want to post you a message to say I disagree with Timeshifter placing of this "blanking" warning template on your page. the diff he posted clearly shows that you did not "remove" any content but rather put the content into hidden comment, a method several people have discussed for the last several days (and a method I have advocated for) on talk:List of mind mapping software. I think this was a good faith edit and I think the reasons for the edit are well expressed on the talk page and so I see no reason for you to be censored or otherwise admonished for reverting. Peace, MPS 16:41, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks User:MPS. This ANI threat by User:Timeshifter is being used as an improper debate tool. Timeshifter has done this before too at WT:EL#Intro is unclear as to difference between external links and reference/citation links and User talk:Requestion/Archive 1#Wikipedia:External_links where I received a 3RR warning after I made only one edit! Timeshifter doesn't seem to understand that edits and reverts are just another part of the consensus process. (Requestion 17:52, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

screwattack.com gametrailers.com

Ya, I've talked about it with others and it's been said that External Links should be avoided at all cost. So in short, since the links I added were wrong, all links are wrong. So every time I see External Links that are not used for sourcing, I will remove them. If there are any arguments, I will simply point them to the debate I've participated in. Duhman0009 21:40, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

What are your thoughts about the MobyGames template? There seem to be 6490 Special:Linksearch/*.mobygames.com external links. (Requestion 21:55, 4 June 2007 (UTC))

I never understood the point of placing links to MobyGames, every Video Game Wiki page I know contains more info than a Moby page, so if anything, Moby link are simply repetition of what has already been said on the Wiki page. Duhman0009 22:15, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

I created a WT:WPSPAM#mobygames.com spam report. You may wish to express your opinion there. (Requestion 01:23, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Penton

Just a heads up on this one User talk:63.77.85.254. Femto 15:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Femto. I updated the count at Talk:Penton Media. (Requestion 20:38, 5 June 2007 (UTC))

Why did you removed the link from the Salary article

Hello,

Why did you treat link http:// www.highlowhigh.com in the Salary article as a spam? Did you even go to the page or you simply remove link, because it doesn't look nice? I have seen on Wikipedia a lot of spam for increasing the PageRank and it is OK ?! But, if someone has created something valuable, you simply treated it as spam.

If you now or don't know the page I have added in the “Internet Salary Reports” section is related to the Salary Survey. For example, you don't treat page opensourcesalary.com which is in the same section as a spam, why? The page http:// www.highlowhigh.com has pagerank = 2 and it is a salary survey page. The page opensourcesalary.com has pagerank=0, so you are "super-admin" who are choosing which page will be placed here on Wikipedia and which not?

People like you don't make Wikipedia cleaner without spam, but they make Wikipedia less valuable. If you will remove the link once again, I will post the message to someone who has more rights here in the Wikipedia.org.

BR, Ivan Sas — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwko120 (talk • contribs)

I don't see your previous edits. You must of been User:217.74.68.2. Thank you for signing up for a free Wikipedia account. About the highlowhigh.com external link I deleted in the Salary article. Wikipedia is the wrong place to go if you are trying to increase your page rank. Have you heard that Wikipedia uses the nofollow tag? I have added a courtesy message to your talk page. It is very informative so please read it and the links it points to. If you think that the opensourcesalary.com link is spam then please by all means delete it. Wikipedia needs your help in fighting this most untasty spam problem. (Requestion 23:49, 6 June 2007 (UTC))

I added the page highlowhigh.com to the Salary article because it is related to the "Internet Salary Reports". I will move this thing to someone who has more power here in the Wikipedia.org.

It is strange that someone like you can decide with own preferences which links will appear in the article and which not. I have written about opensourcesalary.com as an example that your own prefer doesn't treat this page as spam and page I've added you have treated as spam. I see that you didn't understand what I have written about link opensourcesalary.com at all. You only simply don't prefer site I've added to the article.

You are trying to protect the Wikipedia from the spamlinks, but instead of this you are protecting it from having more value. In the "Internet Salary Reports" section only two links from seven are in the top searches for 'salary' keyword. If I will the rest treat as spam and remove them, the end user of Wikipedia Salary article will have no choice and he will don't know that there are not only salary pages concentrated mainly on employers and not on employees. So the end user will have less information value from the article.

I will move this thing to someone who is more responsible and has more power here in the Wikipedia.org . Because it is unacceptable that your own private selection could place some link to the article and my selection couldn't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwko120 (talk • contribs)

WP:SPAM#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. If you have a problem with opensourcesalary.com being spam then you delete it. Don't complain to me. You didn't read that courtesy message I left on your talk page did you? (Requestion 08:20, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

I'll not argue with you. I have sent an email to someone more responsible on Wikipedia. here> spam.seo utility.com/en/Google-Ranking/Ranking_Full.asp. I've checked the top 1000 pages on the 'salary' keyword for the sites placed in the "Internet Salary Reports"

• 1 - spam.salary.com
• 24 - spam.payscale.com
• 66 - spam.realrates.com
• no results - spam.salarybase.com
• 288 - spam.salarymap.com
• no results - spam.salaryscout.com
• no results - spam.opensourcesalary.com
• no results - spam.highlowhigh.com

The pages which are not in the top 1000 should not be also presented on the list of "Internet Salary Reports"? I think no, because it will decrease the value of the Salary article. Because, the pages not presented on the top 1000 list are focused mainly on sharing the salary information through the employees and not through the employers as the top salary sites does. And if you will stop those pioneer sites here, then the visitors of that article will never know that there are such alternative sites focused mainly on the employees. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwko120 (talk • contribs)

OK, that's great, please let me know how your email goes. You seem very interested in page rank and getting top results in Google. I'm getting the feeling that you have a serious WP:COI and it really is a bad idea to edit Wikipedia with these sorts of goals in mind. (Requestion 14:44, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm not interested in the page rank . I only wanted to show you the popularity of the pages in the "Internet Salary Reports" section. And about WP:COI , the editor of the Salary article KevinCuddeback is working for the salary.com. I don't think that his some WP:COI is bad , because it makes the article better. But, I think that focusing only on the salary leaders and not showing to the visitors other options which are focused on the employees is not good thing for the readers of the Salary article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Piwko120 (talk • contribs)

So User:KevinCuddeback is the Director of New Product Development at salary.com? Interesting. Sound's like some potential WP:COI to me. Thanks for the tip, I'll check it out. In the meantime I'm going to slap a {{linkfarm}} tag on the Salary article's internet salary reports section. (Requestion 00:44, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Laugh of the day

Req, check out this diff. Oh, the irony : )  : ) MPS 16:47, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

As you requested : )

Germanic tunic of the 4th century found at the Thorsberg moor

I'd appreciate the matching cloak and hat too. reference diff (Requestion 19:54, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

As you wish, page wanker (just kidding, of course) : )  : )  : ) MPS 21:12, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey, I wouldn't laugh. According to Timeshifter, you're part of the page wank crew too. (Requestion 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

take

my

whole

wardrobe

. MPS 22:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's very nice but what possible use do you think I have for 5 yellow tunics? (Requestion 22:34, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

I'm still waiting for my cloak and hat. All I wanted was a matching ensemble. Ohh yeah, one more thing, is it available in any color other than yellow? Thanks. (Requestion 22:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC))

Hello MPS. This is a laugh from last month that you probably missed. Check out Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_May#The workforall.net spammer meets the sandbox fire-parrot -- for everything else, there's Mastercard. Beware of the fire parrot! (Requestion 20:34, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

Spamlink of Noiseon.com

hi man,

i'm new to wiki so I'll be happy if you would explain to me, why you deleted all the noiseon.com links.

All the links I added were according to what stated in the Wiki anti-spam pages. The website is very useful to everyone who is interested in guitar effects. all the info is objective and free. Each link is directed exactly to the webpage that is related to the subject. For example, on the "Distortion" page there is a link to only Distortions and not to the website homepage. I'm sorry if by adding the link in each subject i have been spaming but in every article, adding useful information is enoreged, and www.noiseon.com has a lot of useful information.

Thanks and waiting for your response

user:Yrcaesar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yrcaesar (talk • contribs)

Hello Yrcaesar. Your website is very nice but Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links. Also, adding your own website is a conflict of interest that is strongly discouraged. No problem though, just please don't add any more noiseon.com external links. Thank you. (Requestion 20:10, 9 June 2007 (UTC))

WikiSummaries

Ha ha, this is going to be one of the many "what gives, man?" style comments. I'm not after "a pound of your flesh", but I do disagree with your recent blanket classification of links to http: //wikisummaries.org as spam. I have reviewed the external link policy especially the "links normally to be avoided" section and I would contest that WikiSummaries is in violation.

I, the creator of WikiSummaries, have added links to WikiSummaries so, yes, I can see that there *may* be bias ;-). (I notice that you've also removed links to WikiSummaries which I did not put up.) I honestly believe that WikiSummaries pages provide information on the content of books far beyond what is normally given in a Wikipedia synopsis. This sentiment must be shared by a multitude of other Wikipedians as many of the links to WikiSummaries have existed for several months on highly edited pages and have been scrutinized by thousands of eyes.

I respect your goal of keeping Wikipedia a clean, spam-free resource. However, I believe that you have erred in this instance.

Regards, --Geneffects 14:00, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Adding external links to your own website is a conflict of interest that is strongly discouraged. See WP:SPAM#External link spamming too. Claiming that many wikisummaries.org links have existed for a long duration of time is not an argument. I noticed many examples where you repeatedly re-added links after other editors had deleted the link as spam. I have a question; how many external links to your domains have you added to Wikipedia during the past year? (Requestion 01:24, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

I would only re-include once and put a detailed explanation in the Talk page. Still, I see your point about the amount of external links. I will avoid such self-links in the future. The crux of my question is: are links to WikiSummaries articles spammy regardless of who made those links? Geneffects 13:23, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, see WP:EL#Links normally to be avoided. (Requestion 18:48, 12 June 2007 (UTC))

Peace

I am chilled. I had noticed a little of the history which is why I moved into the front line. --BozMo talk 18:40, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Once more unto the breach, dear admin. (Requestion 20:29, 13 June 2007 (UTC))

I don't know what I was thinking [11], Quiddity isn't an admin. This comment though proves my suspicion about User:Quiddity following me around tossing wrenches into the machinery. Hmmm. (Requestion 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC))