Jump to content

User talk:Requestion

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Requestion (talk | contribs) at 08:21, 13 May 2007 (cut archive text). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Barnstar

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

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

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

Spamstar of Glory

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

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

Thanks Hu12, I appreciate the honor. (Requestion 19:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi ! Are You guys not exagerating a bit? I do not understand how ferocity can be a justification for a reward in this medium. I thought that reasonability and Wikipedia:Etiquette were more appropriate ways of conduct. Remember one of its Golden Rules: "treat others as you want them to treat you." Or Do You like to be treated ferocitely ? --80.201.19.94 09:39, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. I do expect any good Wikipedian to ferociously kick me left and right, should I ever insert mass-posted promotions for my website. Femto 12:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please read this : User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#OCaml_for_Scientists
and this: User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Linkspam_ast.cac.washington.edu.3F
and this: Wikipedia_talk:External_links/Archive_16#Clarification_of_rich_media_section
and this: User_talk:Requestion#User:Artipol.27s_spam_reversion
Are all those people fanatically advertising their site or ar they providing relevant information as per WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."'
Dont you think it is vandalism when Requestion blanks the information provided without even reading the content as he did here? User_talk:Requestion/Archive_1#Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet
Dont You find it incredibly arrogant Requestion decides in a few seconds over the relevance of so many valuable contributions by competant people mostly specialists in their own fields on basis the most disputable and most inconsequent reasons?
By blanking their information Requestion is denying Wikipedia readers access to their valuable information. His blanking goes well beyond the purpose of spam fighting, as it decreases the the quality of Wikipedia rather than increasing it. This is spam fundmentalism of the worst kind which it is doing WP far more bad than good.
The complaints about his stubborn behaviour disregarding all resonable arguments are numerous and are very justified in most cases. The damage of such spam fundamentalism is not restraint to the direct damage of mass destruction of information. Such spam fundamentalism is also frightening bona fide contributors, and keeping them from their task of adding valuable information while Ciber bullying newcomers is terrorising the Wikipedia community chasing valuable contributors away when they see their contributions vandalised.
No ferocity is not a justification for a reward in this medium. Reasonability and [Wikipedia:Etiquette] are more appropriate ways of conduct. - unsigned comment by (User:87.64.93.128 15:49, 5 May 2007)
Yes, all those people except Artipol were "fanatically advertising their site." They also were violating several Wikipedia policies. The Artipol case was about a link farm and I didn't actually delete any of his links or edits. It also should be mentioned that the wavelet and OCaml threads are about the same individual, as are the washington.edu and rich media threads. (Requestion 20:57, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
These external links are fully compatible with WP instructions "What to link": see : WP:EL "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means. --87.64.93.128 13:34, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You have taken that quote completely out of context and have conveniently chosen to ignore the rest of WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. That quote is about being a source for an article. Maybe the editors that have deleted your workforall.net links don't think your website is a WP:RS or WP:V. Or maybe they think you are spamming. Or maybe they think you have a conflict of interest. I don't know. You'll have to ask them that question. (Requestion 19:14, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Hi guys ! i'm back. Sorry to have kept you waiting so long. We had a hell of a celebration party last night that lasted a bit longer than expected. I also decided to create an account: user:Bully-Buster-007. I did not realise this was so easy,and certainly would advise everyone to do so. Well... back to business. Were where we left. Ah yes... the appropriateness of external links.
Dear user:requestion Please be precise as to what rule you refer to in a debate. We do not feel the need to comment on all WP rules you object to us here. You very well know the discussion about legitimity of external links has come to the point that you should not be interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link this source in case the source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article. We thought you knew this universal juridic principle of supremacy of conflicting rules as it is also common sense. --Bully-Buster-007 08:34, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Urod strikes again

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

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

Obsid

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

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

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

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



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

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

Yes I have been busy, thank you for noticing. I see that you folk over at Dataq Instruments in Akron Ohio have been busy too. 21 dataq.com linkspams, very impressive! (: Dataq received their first warning in August 2004 here [2]. Note that I am not the only editor who has deleted dataq.com external links. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory and it is not a place for inserting advertising links. (Requestion 19:14, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Will you answer the question, please? Why is the page referenced in my post considered spam? I note also that there isn't any self-respecting company who hasn't tried to be linked through Wiki and been denied. Please don't hold that against me. We haven't violated any recent guidelines regarding spam based upon my understanding of the definition. That's why I'd like your comment to the original question.Rwl10267 21:03, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:SPAM. I added a courtesy message on your talk page, please read it and the links in it. If you disagree with me then you are free to start adding external links again. (Requestion 21:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
This conversation has moved to the Talk:Shunt_(electrical)#Measurements_using_current_shunts page. (Requestion 19:22, 27 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

diycalculator.com



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

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

External links - spam - BPMN




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

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

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

User:Artipol's spam reversion

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

I don't see any record that supports what you just said. All I saw was a mediated dispute, a bunch of suspicious blanking activity, and some spamming. So I asked what was going on. To be honest the only thing I really care about is the re-spamming revert [3] that you did to the List of emulators article. Are you aware that Wikipedia is WP:NOT a web directory? And the de-spamming of that article was not vandalism. I am giving you an option to clean up and remove the external links in the List of emulators article. (Requestion 04:09, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm not sure what your problem is with that page? Yes, it contains external links, has always contained external links, and will continue to contain external links. Without such links the page would obviously be quite useless. I think you are confusing "external link" with "spam", the two things have nothing to do with each other. All the links that I have tried on that page lead to bona fide emulator homepages, you seem to be implying they all lead to some kind of non-relevant sites? If so, which links? Artipol 06:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The List of emulators article will not "continue to contain external links." You are misinformed about Wikipedia policy. External links are not valuable content. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and not a link farm. Please read WP:NOT#LINK, WP:EL, and WP:SPAM. Thank you. (Requestion 16:14, 29 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
In that case, delete the entire article, as that is entirely the point of that article. Clearly many people do find it useful, no one else seems to have a problem with it except you. Of course, doing so will reduce the usefulness of Wikipedia, but you obviously don't care about that, it seems clear you would rather ruin Wikipedia than apply common sense. Eg. see WP:Use_common_sense. You're wrong to say they are spam links, you are wilfully using incorrect terminology. Not one of those links is spam. This may be news to you, but there are other sites which have useful resources, not just Wikipedia. Artipol 01:41, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry but Wikipedia is WP:NOT a link farm and that is policy. (Requestion 03:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]

workforall.net linkspam

Socks - all IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium

Domains


Threads



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

After looking at your edits, I can now see why you cleaned them up. They were everywhere... I'll take a look at the footnote reference - if found to appropriate, do you have any objection to adding it back in? Morphh (talk) 13:43, 30 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
144 workforall.net linkspams and User:81.242.58.154 just added another one today. Huge blocks of text with links have been copied and pasted into multiple Wikipedia articles (see the "paste dup text" note above). This mass insertion of duplicate text back in the summer 2006 has propagated into a mess. I've tried to clean it up as well as I could but a Tax article expert needs to do some double checking. Here are some examples of the duplicate text to watch out for: [5] pasted four times, [6] pasted eight times, [7] pasted seven times. The links have even worked their way into citations and references. The workforall.net spamming is one of the most intertwined cases I've encountered. Blacklisting will be requested. (Requestion 17:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC))[reply]
All of the above IP's resolve to SKYNET Belgacom ADSL in Belgium. Today the active User:80.201.26.155 added a couple more paste dup spams and the situation has now evolved into the pasting of duplicate text into talk pages. Tomorrow it will probably be a different dynamic IP address. See the User_talk:Requestion#Please_stop_indiscriminate_mass_destruction for more information. (Requestion 19:18, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The final warning was violated with this [8] edit. (Requestion 21:50, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
New special purpose User:Bully-Buster-007 account with a harassment campaign agenda. Great. (Requestion 16:55, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
A one week block turned into an infinite block for User:Bully-Buster-007. Unfortunately a fearsome multi-headed sock-hydra was spawned as its replacement. (Requestion 19:12, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction

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

Particularly the valuable contributions of WorkForAll.

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

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

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

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

The last thing Wikipedia needs is to have large sections of duplicate text copied and pasted into multiple articles. This goes for talk space too. You pasted the above comment into 5 different places [9] [10] [11] [12] [13], once is sufficient. I am a surgical spam fighter, there was no "such hit-or-miss random destruction", and the collateral damage has been minimized. I did my best effort to remove all the blocks of duplicate text that you've added during the past year. Unfortunately this intertwined mess of duplicate text has propagated and morphed into different sections over time. Complete clean up could take years. Note that I delete big media linkspam too, so just because you're the underdog doesn't give you any more right to spam Wikipedia. Please read WP:SPAM for some helpful information. (Requestion 15:19, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
If your spam fight is surgical as you pretend, you must have an answer as what concrete Wikipedia rule was not respected at the link added under Talk:Economic_data. The information linked to the most comprehensive economic data source on the internet. By vandalising this post you are witholding the Wikipedia community easy access to worldwide data sources. In the future please take the effort to find a better or more comprehensive site before you destroy the information.
I still miss your answer as to what contributed more to the Wikipedia' quality: providing the link or destroying it ? Please stop your the mass destruction of valuable information under the pretext of spam. Let Wikipedia readers decide for themselves decide what is valuable information and what is not. Each link you destroy is one more option you steal from Wikipedia users.
I only see that many users have already complained about your indiscriminate techniques. Please stop them, as they are doing the quality of Wikipedia no good. - unsigned comment by User:80.201.26.155 (16:56, 1 May 2007)
Check the log for the Economic data page. I didn't didn't delete your recent link addition, someone else did. (Requestion 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

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

Please stop carpet bombing my talk page with the repeated pasting of duplicate text. It is almost impossible for me to reply to your questions when you do this. Also new comments get added at the bottom and remember to sign your posts with a (~~~~) tag. (Requestion 17:47, 1 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I conclude from Your remark "I didn't didn't delete your recent link addition, someone else did." that you finally agree that this deletion was illigitimate and that at least part of the Workforall postings contain valuable information and should be reverted.
Please let us know how and on which place we can finish this time consuming discussion on a sensable way. It is not my intention to spam. I hope it is not your intention to vandalise.' - signed User:80.201.26.155
I did not imply any sort of legitimacy of the workforall.net external link or your mass duplicative text pasting. I was simply stating a fact that someone else deleted your most recent edit and that your rage is completely misguided. About continuing this conversation, my talk page is a busy place I suggest User talk:80.201.26.155 or Talk:Economic_data#Workforall.net_external_link, your choice. (Requestion 00:07, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please note that http: //workforall.net has no commercial intentions whatsowever, so we have no interest in spamming. We are a think-tank that provides information (raw data as well as analysis) on a great number of socio-economic subjects.
All we want is to give Wikipedia readers easy access to this well doccumented information, wich may not allways is not mainstream economic thought. So please advise me how to do this without offending "spam" wachers.
please enlight me in these concrete cases :
1. Do you consider a link as below approprioate under the subject "ECONOMIC DATA" ?.
2. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "DATA" ?
3. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "STATISTICS" ?
4. Do you consider it spamming to duplicate this link under the related subject "REGRESSION ANALYSIS" ?
==Data Sources==
* META STATISTICS PORTAL. Survey to comparative international socio-economic Data. This data portal of The Brussels Free Institute for Economic Research provides convenient access to data sources around the Globe. The portal gives handy surveys of data provided by the OECD, Eurostat, the Groningen Development Centre, the Economics Web Institute, the Pacific Exchange Rate Service, as well as all major U.S. Economic Data Sources: USDL, USDA, Census Bureau, White House, the Penn World Tables etc. --217.136.93.7 14:31, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The answer to your 4 questions is that the link is not appropriate and it is considering spamming to add it to those articles. It is also considered spamming to copy and paste that paragraph of text into multiple articles like you did here [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. The exact same text pasted 10 times!? That is just completely inappropriate for an encyclopedia. (Requestion 18:26, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I now see that someone of our staff has indeed been a bit overenthousiastic in repeating the link where it not very relevant. We are very sorry about that and we make sure this wont happen anymore. But you can't be serious about banning the link completely even under the titles DATA and ECONOMIC DATA. A third independant party Ioannes Pragensis (User:Ioannes_Pragensis) expliclitely approved the link in the debate on Talk:Economic_data and expressed the very usefullness under the title "economic data". Banning the link everewhere as You propose has degenerated in spam fundamentalism which is doing more bad than good, and where all common sense has gone. As I understand it the purpose of spam fight, blocking and banning is NOT to punish offenders who may have done this by ignorance of wikipedia rules but to avoid further spam and to make Wikipedia better. Banning the link under "Economic Data" is not making Wikipedia better but worse.
1. I repeat my suggestion to find a better or more comprehensive data survey before you blank the information. It took our staff 2 months to find this amount data from sources dispersed all over the net, and to organise all the information in an easy to use and 100% free survey. The Data portal http://workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html is simply a unique and free service and source of information for anyone in search for economic data. You deny Wikipedia visitors al least 30.000US$ worth of research and knowledge by banning this link.
2. I repeat my question as to which precise rule on WP:EL or WP:SPAM this link would break if repeated under the titles DATA and ECONOMIC DATA.
Please reconsider. Cheers --217.136.93.7 20:29, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here are two quotes that should answer your question about which precise rules were broken. WP:EL says "there is a great temptation to use Wikipedia to advertise or promote links. This includes both commercial and non-commercial sites. You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Next, WP:SPAM says "Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam."(Requestion 21:06, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Please note WP:EL also says "What to link: There are several things that should be considered when adding an external link. Is it accessible to the reader? Is it proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)? Is it a functional link, and likely to continue being a functional link? Each link should be considered on its merits, using the following guidelines. As the number of external links in an article grows longer, assessment should become stricter. When assessing external links you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "that link is a great resource that complies with the verifiability policy,", then you can link and hopefully someone else would add material from the source to the article. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means."
Is http://workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html not useful, tasteful, informative, factual ?
Have You already found a better link offering the same mount of service and information ?
If it pleases You we gladly admit we did not kwow all the WP rules when posting, and are sorry about errors made.
But please reconsider and take in consideration spam fight should not make Wikipedia worse but better.
If not, spam figt degenerates in spam fundamentalism. cheers... --217.136.93.7 21:37, 2 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
By adding external links you are attempting to promote your own website / organization. This is a major conflict of interest. Please read WP:COI which says to avoid "linking to the Wikipedia article or website of your organization in other articles (see Wikipedia:Spam)." (Requestion 23:19, 2 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The rule You cite above is not absolute and is irrelevant in this case. The rule clearly states "avoid". It does not state "are forbidden". If it would have stated "forbiddden" this rule would indeed provide the justification for banning every single link in Wikipedia, without which WP would loose its attractiveness and usefullness and fast become irrellevant. WP:EL cannot be more explicit, precise and absolute in the justification for adding a link such as http: //workforall.net/Statistics-Portal.html under the question: "What to link: you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."'
By blanking this link You are indeed denying Wikipedia users easy access to valuable information. You failed to produce a more comprehensive data portal before deleting this one as we now suggested three times. Blanking without providing an alternative goes well beyond the purpose of spam fighting, as it decreases the the quality of Wikipedia rather than increasing it. This is spam fundmentalism of the worst kind which it is doing WP far more bad than good.
Is it so difficult to admit that mass blanking techniques are as inapropriate to fight spam as carpet bombing is to fight terrorism? Don't you realise the amount of collateral dammage mass blanking is inflicting? Spam fundamentalism is indeed far more destructive than spam itself: every Wikipedia user is just one click away from deciding a link is spam, whereas he might never find, or it might take him years to find the information spam fundamentalists destroy every day. Everey reasonable doctor stops the medication when he sees the cure is worse than the illness.
We ask You a last time to reconsider and direct Your efforts to real spam; irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defines spam. Therefor use precision techniques, not weapons of mass destruction. There is still plenty of constructive work to do. --217.136.93.7 12:18, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Requestion blanked reasonable arguments above without justification. Are You insisiting on mediation ? --217.136.93.7 13:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't blank any of your text. I did deactivate some of your workforall.net links. I'm a spam fighter and I can't have lots of active external links on my talk page. I don't want the spammers calling me a spammer now do I? If you think mediation will help then go for it. You should remember that I am not the only editor or the most recent editor who had to delete your linkspam. (Requestion 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I reverted you edit. Talk pages are meant to be a record of a discussion; deleting or editing legitimate comments as you did here, is considered bad practice, even if you meant well. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia.--Hu12 13:39, 3 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Hu12. (Requestion 19:55, 3 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
At the moment I wrote the complaint about the removal of my reply, the arguments were indeed deleted, which is bad practice Hu12 confirms, whoever did it. So I had to revert it, and am glad the arguments are now left unaltered.
I see that Requestion does not further object to the statements therein, and now accepts that
1. The link to the data portal was appropriate as to WP rules, that its blanking was therefor illigitimate, and can be considered as a clear case of vandalism such as defined on WP:VAND. I assume this accounts for warning as to WP habits to stop further vandalism in similar cases. Please contradict me if I am wrong.
2. that spam fundamentalism using indiscriminate mass blanking is far more destructive than spam itself and the remedies used by Requestion being worse than the illness, common sense obliges to stop such indiscriminate practices. — 80.201.19.94 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 10:57, 4 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
There is no consensus for adding your links. Any contribution for which there is no consensus, unless elsewise required by the accepted policies and guidelines, may be reverted until consensus can be established otherwise. So far, to put it mildly, rough consensus seems to be that the information you want to add should not be included. This is a perfectly legitimate part of Wikipedia's editing procedure and not vandalism, so kindly stop canvassing against this user. Femto 19:29, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I do not want to ad new info, but revert a ligitimate link (see above) which was vandalised. (see : WP:VAND Types of vandalism: Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.)
--80.201.19.94 20:30, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Show me the diff. Otherwise I have no idea what you are taking about. (Requestion 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
You guys do not even seem to understand the basic logic behind WP procedures. Adding is about making a totally new, unverified and untested information. It is logic for such unverified additions consensus should be obtained. Reverting a is about undoing illecit vandalism to well established information which was read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP Readers, and which should not have been deleted without consensus in the first place. --87.64.93.128 11:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC) [removed bolding of entire paragraph Femto 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
Another Belgian IP. I wonder who that is. Femto 12:28, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Are we neighbours ? WVL. --87.64.93.128 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The part about "replacing entire established pages with one's own version" does not mean what you appear to think it does. Let's play along though: The established version was this one. Then this copy-and-pasted piece of spam was added, and Requestion reverted it providing proper explanation as defined by the policy that you cite. An IP replaced it with its own version again without consensus. So you say by your definition you vandalized. Okay, I'm fine with that. Femto 12:40, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As to this precise of the case under "Economic Data" please tell me why You oppose to its content. The information therin is relevant and verifiable, and the external link is fully compatible with WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarize it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", 'then link, by all means."' I thout there was consensus by now about the value of theis link.
The note above was rather refering to all the other well established information Requesion removed without gaining consent. see : Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#workforall.net
I allready indicated I shall gladly consent to removal of the links where they are found unappropriate. I'll defend them wher they are approproate. The point of the wole discussion is in the title : Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction. His mass blanking techniques are as inapropriate to fight spam as carpet bombing is to fight terrorism. Don't you realise the amount of collateral dammage his mass blanking is inflicting? Spam fundamentalism is indeed far more destructive than spam itself. --87.64.93.128 16:50, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Read it again, the comments at that WT:WPSPAM #workforall.net link above actually implies consensus. Another important point is that no other editors have added your links and text back. Heck, you haven't even tried to revert it back. That's consensus multiplied times 3. (Requestion 21:14, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Actually when you add in Femto and Hu12's comments here, it is consensus times 4! (Requestion 21:20, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
please dont misunderstand me putting femto's message in the correct order as endorsing its content.
please do not misunderstand me not wanting to start an edit war at this point as a consent with your vandalism.
to make my position quite clear i explicitely express my oppostion to all your vandalism such as defined in WP:VAND Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus. by this statement . --87.64.93.128 11:38, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you added another workforall.net link today [24] and a completely independent editor deleted it [25] with the comment of "rv link spam." Then yet a different editor gave you a spam1 warning [26] for that edit. I suppose you'll just chalk this up as more vandals conspiring against you? (Requestion 19:46, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
First accusing me of consenting for not reverting your blanking, and then accusing me of spam for revering is not very logical. By the way: this spam1 warning looks to me very much as one of these computer-generated messages that was misfired by accident: Ioannes Pragensis first found the Link very appropriate and usefull, and now he blanks it. Strange logic your automated messages are following. see : Talk:Economic_data By the way: You did not yet answer my question what the consensus implied. --87.64.93.128 21:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
First of all it is called "deleting" an external link or comment, "blanking" is something completely different. Second, Ioannes Pragensis only gave you the spam1 warning, someone else reverted your edit. Thirdly, those are not automated messages. Finally, to answer your question, the consensus is that your interpretations of the WP:RULES are very very wrong. (Requestion 22:19, 6 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is there much interpretation possible in WP:EL instructions "What to link": when it says you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.. Can the rule be more explicit, precise and concrete and affirmative than what it says ? - unsigned comment by (User:87.64.93.128 22:56, 6 May 2007)
Can you stop quoting "then link, by all means" since it doesn't say that. Another mistake you are making is ignoring all the other things WP:EL, WP:NOT, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM say. Even if WP:EL said what you think it says, you are not allowed to ignore everything else. (Requestion 03:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Can you Stop interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should avoid linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more precise [WP:EL]instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, concrete and affirmative in inviting users to link in a case a source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article?
Can you Stop assuming bad faith every time users link to a reliable source. Can you stop assuming their intend is to promote a site when all they want is to provide relevant information? Can you please start to assume good faith such as WP policy tells you to?
Can you please stop your link-spam fundamentalism and start to use common sence? Links are most valuable tools for users in their search for information. If it is your intent to improve WP then stop your mass destruction, and use precision tools to destroy the guenine spam we all despise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.240.150.59 (talk) 08:01, 7 May 2007 (UTC).[reply]
The answer is no to all 3 of your requests. I'd also like to point out that WP:AGF says "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." (Requestion 08:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Is that a final decision on which You reflected well? --81.240.150.59 09:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Your requests only apply to you and the answer is still no. Sorry but you ran out of good faith a long time ago. (Requestion 15:38, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Your answer above is not very clear. Please be precise and specify your position on our 3 questions under the 4 cases below: (9 answers please):
Question 1 : Are You prepared to stop interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should avoid linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more precise [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, concrete and affirmative in inviting users to link in a case a source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article?
1.1. - as a general principle for users in general .
1.2 - as to the 5 cases described in User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
1.3 - as to the submissions we made
1.4 - Does your position under 1.3 apply for all our submissions our ar You willing to consider some cases; if yes which ones ??.
Question 2 : Are you willing to stop assuming bad faith every time users link to a reliable source. Can you stop assuming their intend is to promote a site when all they want is to provide relevant information? Can you please start to assume good faith such as WP policy tells you to?
2.1. - as a general principle for users in general .
2.2 - as to the 5 cases described in User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
2.3 - as to the submissions we made
2.4 - Does your position under 2.3 apply for all our submissions our ar You willing to consider some cases. if yes which ones ??.
Question 3. Are You willing to reconsider your link-spam fundamentalism and start to use common sence?
--Bully-Buster-007 20:01, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not answering your questions. Go away. (Requestion 20:24, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


OK, that is the second time you've falsely accused me of deleting your comments. Show me the diff. Also please stop claiming that I accept your point of view. I don't agree with you. Nope, not vandalism. You are interpreting WP:VAND incorrectly. (Requestion 16:19, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The discussion over removed parts of the debate is closed. Maybe it was User:Hu12 who accidently removed it. It was restored an that is good enough for me.
Please keep to the point. Please give precise arguments why you disagree about me calling your action vandalism. The definition of vandalism is clear and precise: see WP:VAND Types of vandalism : Wikipedia vandalism may fall into one or more of the following categorizations: Blanking Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.
In the meantime please stop all vandalism, accusations and calls for blacklisting on Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#workforall.net till concensus is reached.
Please also stop cyberbullying newcomers with most vague references to regulations which are not applicable. Please in future be precise with referring to regulations. You are chasing bona fide contributers away. Or is that the intention of your action ? ( see: Bullying
--80.201.19.94 21:50, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think a WP:CONSENSUS has already been reached. You also aren't a newcomer, you've been editing Wikipedia since October 2005 [27]. (Requestion 22:58, 4 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I am not pleading for reasonable conduct only for our own sake, but on behalf of the hundreds of bona fide newcomers whose contibutions were vandalised on basis of the wrong assumption external links are per definition wrong and which were scared away by ciberbullying. --87.64.93.128 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, WP:CONSENSUS has been reached. At this point you are, however, encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia. See the welcome page to learn more. Thanks.--Hu12 23:24, 4 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
What does the concensus imply? Let us be precise and not not rush to vague conclusions at a point where the debate becomes really interesting for providing a few precise guidelines for the conduct of overenthousiastic spammers as well as overenthousiastic spam fighters.
Let us summerise a few undisputed conclusions so far:
- Users are encouraged to add content instead of links to the encyclopedia.
- External links are VERY welcome when the content of an external source is relevant and reliable but is too long and cannot be summarized in an article.
- In a case of doubt it is preferable NOT to remove an external links as blanking a suspected spam could be far more destructive than spam itself. Users are indeed just one click away from deciding a link is spam, whereas it might take them years to find the link to the information destroyed.
- Blanking all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus is vandalism.
- Removal of spam should be precison work.
- Cyber bullying newcomers is impoper conduct
-Please correct me where I am wrong. --87.64.93.128 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Since I was recently a victim of an anti-spam attack by Requestion. I thought I’d chime in on this topic for whatever it’s worth. I state up front that I don’t hold any particular malice toward Requestion for his or her actions toward me, and I freely and openly admit that I deliberately spammed my website on Wiki several years ago in a self defense mechanism, since many of my competitors were doing the same. Now that SEs apply the nofollow tag this action by me is no longer necessary and hasn’t been for some time.
However, the fact remains that the market my business addresses is thinly traveled and there are gaping holes in much Wiki content that applies to it. Much of the information missing in Wiki is treated in detail in application notes on our website, which assume a general tone of unbiased information with minimal or absolutely no commercial content except that they appear on a commercial site. Over the last several months I have placed a handful of links to appropriate places on our website to help full in these blanks. Some Wiki editors have removed a few because they didn’t believe they were germane. The balance was removed by Requestion as outright spam. In the former case, I disagree with the narrow interpretation but I’m willing to let the hole in Wiki content remain unfilled. Even when the content is considered spam because of a tangential product reference I’m willing to let it go. However, when a link contains absolutely no commercial content, fits perfectly with the Wiki Article, fills in blanks not covered there, survived several spam sweeps for many months, and is then removed under the pretense of spam, I begin to wonder what’s going on. Content in one of these links was crucial to prevent explosive destruction of instruments and outright personal injury, which I have actually seen first hand. Requestion, sighting Wiki spam policy, claims that the link was self-serving since I linked to my own company’s website. In one hour I could find a dozen customers who would be willing to link to it instead. Are those links okay? If so then Wiki should know better than to create and maintain a policy that is so blatantly unenforceable. In this last case I invested considerable time and effort to reword the content and redesign the graphics so as not to violate Wiki’s copyright policy, and placed it directly into the article. I did this because of the critical importance of the subject, but I doubt I’ll go to that effort again. Why? Because I did it once already on our website, and it seems counterproductive to say the same thing two different ways. Aren’t hyperlinks a fundamental and invaluable Internet tool for this very reason?
Wiki and Requestion are free to create, interpret and apply spam policy as each chooses. At the same time, this spirit should be tempered with the unconceited realization that much valuable, relevant, and unbiased content exits on commercial sites. The External Links section of each article exists, I assume, for this reason. Why not evaluate the content of external links based on the merit of the information they provide as opposed to who placed them there? I occurs to me that Wiki readers would only benefit from such a reasonable approach. Rwl10267 20:01, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Rwl10267. I find your extremely honest comment saddening. I thought we had made so much progress (see WP:GRIEF). I even considered you one of my success stories. I guess I was wrong. I guess I need to try harder next time. (Requestion 21:37, 5 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Requestion, in fact I am one of your success stories! I couldn't and wouldn't have gone through my editing effort if not for you. But sorry to disappoint, I don't fit the Wiki 5-stage model for grieving. I'm still here and still fully appreciate Wiki content -- with or without my links. I'll embellish Wiki content from time to time, but I hope you understand that wholesale rewrites of material that already exists in a form completely devoid of commercial content is not very productive. I further hope that you reconsider the last paragraph of my previous post and apply your considerable influence to make such pointless efforts obsolete. No hard feelings. I know you have a job to do. I just wish you weren’t so…..enthusiastic ;-)) Rwl10267 22:25, 5 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Believe me, Rwl10267, this has nothing to do anymore with the quality of Wikipedia. What once began as a legitimate struggle against guenine spam ( irrelevant, unuseful, untasteful, uninformative links such as WP:EL defined it), and which we all despise has since long degenerated. First in linkspam fundamentalism banning any external link (however relevant it may be), then in censorship of content they dislike, and since a couple of months in a war for power between the bullies and bona fide contributors who soon give up their struggle for survival before the ruthless vandalism of the bullies.
Look at the long history of mass destructions here Special:Contributions/Requestion. See how it gradually escalated and degenerated, and how every case of vandalism give them more confidence to vandalise others. See how it escalated till they found they could challenge phd's from the worlds finest universities as they did here Hilbert-Hermitian_wavelet.In the end those guys believe they are god, as one victim put it.
When even links to a PhD of the Cambridge University like this http://spam.ffconsultancy.com/free/thesis.html. is considered as spam, I wonder what will be left to link. When Requestion will have finished his censorship vocation we end up with a wikipedi-ette a in pocket format; Handy I agree, but not very informative.
The techniques these guys use: mass-destruction of constructive contributions, unappropriate warnings, intimidation, threats with banning, boycots and blacklisting constitute guenine terror and have all the characteristics of cyber-bullying such as wonderfully described here: Bullying. Read what motivates the sick minds of bullies here Bullying#Characteristics_of_bullies. Read how they attribute each other rewards for ferocity here User_talk:Requestion#Spamstar_of_Glory
Dont expect reasonabilty from them by being friendly. Dont expect reasonable arguments. Each time you ask these guys for detailed justification, they fail to produce concrete evidence. Dont believe their escalating warnings. Dont believe their threats with blocking and blacklisting. Ignore all their automatically generated messages. Dont believe their false accusations of improper behaviour on the slightest technical error you make. Dont lose time reading pages and pages of irrelevant instructions their vague automatically generated instructions direct you to.
External links are indeed a perfectly integrating part of WP. WP instructions cannot be clearer as under WP:EL instructions "What to link": you need to simply ask yourself the question: Why is the link not used as a source for the article? If the answer is "because it is not a reliable source," then don't link. If the answer is, "because the content of that external link is too long and would not be possible to summarise it in the article, but it is is a reliable source", then link, by all means.
The vandalism of these spam fundamentalists do WP quality much more bad than good. They deny readers access to relevant information, and chase away valuable contributors. (see above). By what authority should they decide for millions of wikipedia users what is relavant or not? Does mere bullying provide' them that authority? Their remedies being worse than the illness, it is time to stop their mad cures. It is time to stop those guys. If someone knows how please advise. I'll be glad to help. --87.64.93.128 14:23, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
WP:EL doesn't say "then link, by all means.'" (Requestion 19:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I'm afraid you're entitled to your own opinion, twisted as it is. You're not going to change anybody's opinion here though, just like we don't seem going to be able to change yours. If you have questions about particular parts of Wikipedia's editing practice, feel free to start a discussion with the general public at the appropriate policy pages, or if the current consensus isn't to your liking you can even try to get it changed.
I think any further targeting of this user's talkpage with accusations of vandalism or attacks against how spam is handled in general can only serve the purpose of harassment and personal retaliation against the one who simply was the first to remove your spam. He won't be the last. You feel bullied because your edits got removed? Boohoo. You agree to it with every single editbox that you use: if you don't want your spam get edited mercilessly, do not submit it. Femto 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Do the harassers feel harrassed by reasonable arguments and concrete evidence? I only wanted to warn other victims about methods used by this gang. The debate would have been closed long time ago if you accepted to be reasonable such as I proposed six times in the most friendly manner. After all the harrassement I went through I'll still consider abandoning the debate as soon as all illecit vandalising to our contributions and those of a few other victims we feel deep sympathy with has been undone and the boycot on all these constructive contributors is lifted. (see :WP:VAND: Types of vandalism: Blanking: Removing all or significant parts of pages, or replacing entire established pages with one's own version without first gaining consensus.). If You think more people should learn about this discussion; please feel free to link it wherever You want. Maybe You could start on your own talk page. Some of Your own victims might be very interested in this debate. I do not claim any copyright. --81.240.150.59 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what. Most editors find it perfectly appropriate when disputed additions are removed until consensus is reached that their inclusion is encyclopedically appropriate. Doubly so when it's a mere web directory entry that reads like an advertisement, and is copy-and-pasted conflict-of-interest spam to boot; a mere pointer leading away from Wikipedia whose fundamental goal is to create free content. We're not here for building a directory to content that is controlled by others, no matter how good. Sure, that takes more work than simply dumping links to yourself everywhere. Femto 15:21, 6 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not again reverse the logic of WP procedures. You guys are really hard to learn. I already explained above adding is about making a totally new, unverified and untested information. Sensable users agree that for such unverified additions consensus should be obtained. Our claim for reverting is about undoing illecit vandalism to well established information which was already read, verified, scrutinized, often ammended and corrected and finally approved by thousands of other WP Readers, and which should not have been blancked by requestion without consensus in the first place. --81.240.150.59 10:13, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's it, we must be all retarded, because your claims make less and less sense. The removal of your spam reflects consensus and is not vandalism (on the other hand, persistent reinclusion is vandalism). What "vandalism to well established information" are you referring to? You know how to link a diff. If you want to continue your accusations, you must provide specific evidence, or you will be blocked for harassment. Femto 12:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That certainly is not it. That is one more case of qualified intimidation, and on more error in your concepts. Above we expressed our explicit opposition to the blanking on several occasions, and the last time no longer ago than yesterday. So there there is absolutely no concensus. Do you guys really think that an agreement between a group of conspiring individuals can constitute a consensus against the opinion of others? Please re-read Concensus. Please learn how to gain our willing consent. Bullying us with treats, boycots, banning, ciber terror and insults are not very helpfull. Reasonability are better ways to achieve our willing consent. Which brings us back to central point of the debate: Please stop indiscriminate mass destruction,and be reasonable. From our side we are still willing to be reasonable, we only expect reasonability from your side. --81.240.150.59 13:44, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Stage three, now that's progress. "Concensus" isn't the policy, Wikipedia:Consensus is. And it says "Consensus does not mean that everyone agrees with the outcome". Your willing consent? What about my willing consent? What about the consent of everybody else who disagreed with your spam? Yes, when something is removed and everybody except the one who added it can agree it was spam, that's consensus all right.
Okay: Next time, you don't ignore the first friendly spam warning, and don't reinclude disputed edits, and you won't get insulted with second, third, and final warnings. Next time, you don't attack other editors for not adhering to your twisted notion of how Wikipedia should be run, and they won't terrorize you by defending themselves. Next time, you don't spam for your site, and those evil, mean other editors won't have to remove it. That is reasonable, yes? I knew we can agree. Femto 18:26, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]


See these Wikipedia policies and guidelines; they contain some hard truths for the workforall.net crowd:
[comment: Actually I'm not quite clear how much of a "crowd" there really is behind these IPs... Femto 12:06, 7 May 2007 (UTC)][reply]
  1. ""Types of vandalism"" - spam is defined as vandalism
  2. ""What vandalism is not"" -- Requestion's actions are not vandalism
  1. ""Wikipedia is not a soapbox for":
    1. "Propaganda or advocacy of any kind."
    2. "Self-promotion"
    3. "Advertising"
  2. "Wikipedia is not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files"
--A. B. (talk) 01:52, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please do not copy and paste large parts of tekst in a debate. Please be precise as to what rule you refer to in this debate. We do not feel the need to comment on all WP rules you object to us here. If You would have read the debate attentively you would have kwnown the discussion about legitimity of external links has come to the point that you should not be interpreting a general [WP:EL] rule "You should AVOID linking to a website that you own" as an absolute prohibition when a much more concrete [WP:EL] instruction "What to link:" cannot be more explicit, precise and affirmative as to inviting users to link this source in case the source is relevant, reliable but cannot be summerised in an article. --Bully-Buster-007 20:10, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Don't even bother responding. The above comment is in fact duplicate talkspam that was also posted here [28]. The middle section is identical word-for-word. I feel insulted, we don't even get the decency of receiving original fuming rants anymore. (Requestion 21:44, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
I just did a search and the phrase "cannot be more explicit" has been repeated five times on this talk page. It is followed by "precise and affirmative", "precise and absolute", or "concrete and affirmative". See the pattern? I feel duped. (Requestion 22:02, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]


The thread continues here: User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#Welcome.2C. (Requestion 17:16, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The following "inappropriate warning notices" were deleted [29] as per User_talk:Bully-Buster-007#One_week_block. I sure hope this ordeal is finally over but I have a strange feeling that it will all startup again next week. (Requestion 17:21, 10 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
The tranquility did not even last a single day and the User_talk:Bully-Buster-007 block has now become infinite. Just like cutting off the head of the Hydra, two have grown back in its place, and then two more. I fear that we have created a monster and before the week is done every Belgian IP address will be consumed by this madness. (Requestion 20:33, 11 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Foie Gras - goldarths.com linkspam



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

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


221.128.147.236's mystery comment

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

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


publicintegrity.org



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

Hello Quadpus. You have wandered into a mass spamming that I'm still in the process of unraveling. My current rough guess to the extent of this exuberant external linking is 70 linkspams that have been deleted by many different editors. The truly sad part is that The Center for Public Integrity's political views are pretty much in-sync with mine. Famous quote: "I'd don't care if you're the freakin' Pope, nobody gets to spam Wikipedia!" (Requestion 21:08, 8 May 2007 (UTC))[reply]
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 [31] 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 [32] 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]


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]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Requestion&oldid=130499519"