User talk:Mushroom/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Spam Links

Hi, You have removed some of the links to my Music, TV and Movies site. Please explain to me why tens of thousands of links to the Internet Movie Database are allowed on these same Wikipedia pages. Is IMDB not a commercial website? Do they not have a multitude of banner ads on every single page linked to from Wikipedia?

Thanks for any guidance you can give.

Here's my explanation:
  • Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not about commercial sites at all. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote your site are not.
  • Linking to a website you own or maintain is expressly forbidden.
  • Links to IMDb have been approved by the community.
Please read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam for more information. Mushroom (Talk) 14:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Space and Upper Atmosphere Research Commission

Can you please guide me regarding the copyright infringement in the article. Also guide me to remove possible infringement and rewrite the article. The article is significant and need to be replaced in case it gets deleted due to the copyright violation. I have already mailed the organization to send a permission regarding the use of material from the website to permissions at wikipedia dot org.Voldemortuet 07:43, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is a copyright violation since most of the text is copied from the official website of the organization, and the text doesn't seem to be in the public domain. This means you need to ask for permission to use the text; it is important to make it clear that the text will be released under the GFDL license and will become free to use for anyone, even for commercial purposes (example letters here). After you obtain permission, you have to follow the instructions here. The current article will be deleted after seven days. In the meantime, you can start to write a new article on this temporary page. Mushroom (Talk) 07:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I see point in some of what you said specially commercial use etc but what does copyright mean when we are talking of history and a statement of facts? Sure we can move around words but the statement would be the same. And where else is one supposed to get info on Suaprco except from Suparco website, Suparco being a rather secretive organisation so far? Is wiki Admin being too whiter than white.
Getting information from the Suparco website and rewriting it with your own words is ok. Copying it altogether is not. And it's not my opinion, it's the Wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Copyrights is clear about that. Mushroom (Talk) 12:25, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

RE: Please do not add inappropriate external links to Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links nor should it be used for advertising or promotion. Inappropriate links include (but are not limited to) links to personal web sites, links to web sites that you are affiliated with, and links that exist to attract visitors to a web site or promote a product. See the external links guideline and spam policies for further explanations of links that are considered appropriate. If you feel the link should be added to the article, then please discuss it on the article's talk page rather than re-adding it. See the welcome page to learn more about Wikipedia. Thank you. Mushroom (Talk) 08:30, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The link is NOT inappropriate. In fact, it was there for the longest time. I was just correcting the title.
Sorry about that. Mushroom (Talk) 08:37, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: I wrongfully accused you of spamming, and I apologize for that, but my link removals were justified by Wikipedia's external links policy. Unofficial sites are not allowed unless they are reliable sources. Mushroom (Talk) 08:58, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Ok, for starters, saying that a site isn't a reliable source is your own personal opinion, and goes against Wikipedia's belief of neutrality. Several of the sites that you deleted are QUITE reliable sources. A few of them have been servicing the online Ghostbusters community for over 10 years. They're not "fly by night" sites. In fact, all of the links that you deleted have been on Wikipedia for years. And the sad thing is that they would still be there if I didn't decide to be a nice guy and fix up a few titles and urls, which as a result, caused the page to be added to the Recent Changes list. So I respectfully request that you revert the pages back to my revisions, so that I don't have to do it myself, and so you can show that you're being unbiased.

I didn't remove those links because of you, I did it to implement Wikipedia's current policies. Reliable sources are clearly defined, and those sites are not reliable sources, since they are self-published, and they have "not been subject to any form of independent fact-checking" (quote from the policy). The fact that they were on Wikipedia for years doesn't mean anything. What if I find a mistake in an article? Should I leave it as it is because it's been there for years? It's the same with those links. Unless you prove that those websites are not "created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work" (another quote), i.e. they are written by notable researchers that meet the guidelines at WP:BIO and are experts in their field, I won't add those links back. Mushroom (Talk) 09:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

RE: Unless you prove that those websites are not "created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work" (another quote), i.e. they are written by notable researchers that meet the guidelines at WP:BIO and are experts in their field, I won't add those links back. Mushroom (Talk) 09:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Then by your definition of a reliable source, you need to go through the entire Wikipedia website and delete every single link to the Internet Movie Database because that is the most UNreliable source on the entire internet. The fact that you left the IMDb links, and well as an iMockery link, shows that you ARE bias against Ghostbusters websites (perhaps you work for IMDb or iMockery). I guess the fact that many of the long-running Ghostbusters websites have contacts within Sony (the company that owns the Ghostbusters franshise) doesn't prove that they're a reliable source, huh? I guess the fact that the long-running Ghostbusters websites are run by die-hard fans, who know the movie backwards and forwards, means that those individuals are not "experts in their field", huh? (It makes me wonder what you think of the life-long Star Trek fans "Trekkies".) Do you honestly expect me to believe that you would only approve links about Ghostbusters II and Extreme Ghostbusters if they were written by a noted scholar with walls filled with degrees? Come on. This isn't the Theory of Relativity we're taking about. It's just a movie and a tv series, respectively. The fans who create the long-running sites ARE the notable researchers, they ARE the experts.

I'm not interested in this conversation anymore. It's pretty clear that your only interest is in keeping a link to your website ( on Wikipedia. I didn't remove the I-Mockery link just because that site has a Wikipedia article, but I think it's useless so feel free to remove it if you want. Regarding IMDb, that is one of the few cases where a site that is known as unreliable is accepted in the External Links section. That was decided by the community, as it is the most complete and extensive database about movies. But un-reliablity was not the only reason for the removal: those sites are also fansites, and linking to fansites is forbidden by the external link guidelines. So that was yet another reason to remove those links. And if this was not enough, the guidelines also prohibit the addition of links to websites you own or maintain, as you did to Ghostbusters. I won't add those links back, you can't convince me, and I consider this discussion closed. Mushroom (Talk) 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Chaplain to the Nightclubs in Bournemouth

Hi Mushroom

Thanks for removing the spam from the "Chaplain" article. I have restored "Chaplain to the Nightclubs in Bournemouth" as it is a good (ie working) link, however what links are appropriate for this article? It could easily get swamped with links about chaplains, but that is more appropriate for Open Diorectory than Wiki I guess. Grateful for your thoughts. Springnuts 09:57, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

That's ok, I think. Thanks for letting me know. Mushroom (Talk) 10:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
OK I had a look at the policy (thanks for the link to that) and so have removed all but one link. Hope I have not been too savage with the merciless zeal of a new convert! Springnuts 23:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

User talk page revert

Thanks for that. --Guinnog 12:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No problem, glad to help :) Mushroom (Talk) 12:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

No worries

But why ? It is not spam.

I thought it was good team work. :) Sarah Ewart (Talk) 12:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes it was :) Mushroom (Talk) 12:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

Why you delete links about kamaz trucks ? And about Counsil of human rights in Russia ?

But why ? It is not spam.
Wikipedia has an external links policy, and I properly warned you. Regarding Kamaz, Wikipedia articles shouldn't link to unofficial websites, fan sites, and so on. Regarding the human rights site, the Human rights and United Nations articles have already too many external links and there is no need for Russian websites that English-speaking users (generally) can't read. Why don't you add them to the Russian wikipedia? And please consider adding content instead of link, or you may be considered a spammer. Mushroom (Talk) 13:49, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

what link are you talking about? i just updated links, didn't add anything.

Sorry about that. Anyway, this one was not appropriate, since Wikipedia articles should not link to forums. Mushroom (Talk) 14:08, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
ok, makes sense. I was just trying to clean up links i had added in the past that i knew were no longer working.
Keep up the good work.

Fan site

I don't see how that link was inappropriate. It linked to a fan site for Tom Brady yes, but one with a detailed biography for Brady and much other important information about Tom Brady. There is some extra stuff added to spice it up but nothing inappropriate.

Fan sites are generally inappropriate. Links normally to be avoided, number 2:
Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Information in a fan site is unverifiable, so it shouldn't be linked to. And it counts as spam too, if you own or maintain the site. Mushroom (Talk) 23:46, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

External Link removal

You've removed a few links just added to a few movies that are coming out next month that had very few external links.

The links were to database pages for a movie database that provides tons of information on the individual films.

For instance one link that you deleted was for Conversations with God. The external link you removed had full cast, release dates, official sites, synopsis, trailers, posters and links to each individual persons each filmography, plus any news for that person.

Think you've maybe been a bit aggressive in your deletion perhaps?

Yes, exactly as you've been aggressive in your spamming. If you wanted to help, you would add all that information to Wikipedia, instead of links. You're just trying to promote your non-notable website, and Wikipedia doesn't need your links. Mushroom (Talk) 16:00, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not spamming. The site is notable. In what way do you judge the site is not notable? For instance you removed the external link for Fur, when there were no external links to Fur? In what way is that spamming? I was just adding links to a site that I started using this week, after I found it when they had the first pics of Matt Damon filming Bourne Ultimatum. I though the links would be a good addition to films coming out next month. I never added stuff such as posters as I'm just figuring out how to edit wiki pages and the external links was the first bit I figured out.

Ok, maybe it's notable. But let me quote the policy: Links normally to be avoided, number 2:
Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
Since that site is self-published it is in no way verifiable or a reliable source. It is instead "created by unknown individuals who have no one checking their work" and "there is no editorial oversight or third-party fact-checking" (as far as I know). So please don't add those links. Feel free to edit anything else, though. Mushroom (Talk) 16:28, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
How do you know that its self published? I don't. For all I know that site could be run by dozens of people within the film industry?
I know it's self published because when you make a whois on its domain it is registered to a single person, not an editorial company or an organization. And also from what it says in the "about" section and in the forum section. It seems that the content is not reviewed by anyone, except the founder of the site. And anyway, even if I didn't have this information, you would have to prove that it is actually not self-published to put the links in Wikipedia. And even then, you couldn't do that like you did before, you would have to propose the additions on the articles' talk page, as the other editors do when a link addition is not totally uncontroversial. But why are you so interested in that site? Didn't you say you discovered it this week? Mushroom (Talk) 18:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not so much interested in the site per se, just the absolutely hard-ass way you handled things. Especially that Fur link I added. I see your point about adding stuff to wiki, but I also would feel a bit bad about just copying all their information they've gathered into Wiki. Surely that would then be plagiarism? They had a lot more information that Wiki on that project, so surely kudos was due to them? I can see where you're coming from be preventing spammers. But I do feel you were extremely hard handed/hearted in the way you did it. I guess I'm a free speech kind of guy, and for anything I've done to be deleted (especially when I'm new at it) is kind of galling/not on, especially without even a discussion about it. Could you not have emailed me to discuss first?

You say you know where the site is by a whois, but can you honestly say you did that before you deleted the additions I made? To be honest I'm not sure where you're coming from by the information is reviewed by anyone. I'll use a good example here, imdb, is probably a good example of where you feel the information is reviewed before its posted. But we all know its often weidly inaccurate, and based on rumours and very easy for it to be wrong. You hear all the time about film professionals complaining in interviews, where the interviewer asks them a question about a project they are linked with from imdb, and the interviewee hasn't even heard of it.

I'm also confused by this self published thing. The most relevant and authoritative sites to do with films on the net are self published. Take the imdb again, Col Needham set that up in his own name and paid the bills for ages, until amazon bought them. Now are we going to describe imdb as self published? Also you're Harry Knowles, JoBlo, Coming Soon are all self publishers and that's where everyone gets their movie information from that I know.

IMDb is an exception, since it's the most complete and exhaustive movie database out there, and links to it are approved by the community. And it certainly can't be considered spam, since it is already one of the 40 most visited sites in the world. But if we had to link to every movie site, we would have hundreds of links. So we don't link to any other self-published movie site. Mushroom (Talk) 13:55, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

External links

You removed a link to and and you are calling it spam. I do see your point (I read somw of the Talk pieces). Wiki must be awash with those links. But I think that there is relevant content on there that Wiki doesn't have. I add to the sites over time and yes there is a commercial piece but it just covers the domain hosting costs. Your the Admin and are charged with this maintenance task but where is the line between spammers and content? Sure I can contribute to Wiki but I would like some of my content to be only found on my website and not Wiki's so people come back. Eventually, all content will be on Wiki and no one will need to go to a website. Do what you must but I just wanted to give my 2 cents.

Come on, don't be ridiculous. Those two websites are shamefully copied from older versions of the respective Wikipedia articles, with no attribution of the source. I will immediately report them so that they can be shut down since they are not compliant with the GFDL. Mushroom (Talk) 16:33, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Dear Mushroom, Thanks for writing. Please don't worry about the links, I've checked them all out before adding them. The Ledge is definitely reliable: I've often used the info presented there in my own work. And it's fun! You ask what it adds: the unique aspect of The Ledge, I think, is the way in which books are connected in webs. The site really makes use of the possibility provided by internet to interconnect various elements: books, in this case, but also authors and literary movements. And the interviews on the site are quite good, too. sincerely, Myrthe 17:45, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Suikoden V

I'm wondering why my free strategy guide was taken off the Suikoden V external links page. It wasn't put there in the intention to self promote - we don't sell anything so there isn't any reason for us to do so.

Why have games that link to paid guides? You allow that but I can't link to a free guide that covers every aspect of the game?

You shouldn't have put it there in the first place: it was a violation of the external link guidelines. It is forbidden to link to a website you own or maintain. It would be a conflict of interest, wouldn't it? If you find articles that link to paid guides, report them to me and I will remove them. They are not allowed either. Mushroom (Talk) 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

So even if your site is completely relivent and has much more information than Wikipedia will ever put on the subject, it is "forbidden" because of a conflict of interest? I see when money is involved but it is A FREE VIDEO GAME WALKTHROUGH. What is the harm in that, you're just cutting people off from the places they'd like to see based on a technicality that still is a little grey, buddy. Whatever, keep eliminating all the useful information on Wikipedia, I'm sure they appreciate it.

It's not free, it's ad-supported. Maybe you're not making much money from it, but having links in a high-traffic site like Wikipedia would certainly help. And even if it isn't for the money, Wikipedia would still help your site grow, so you can't be neutral and objective when adding those links. And anyway, it can't certainly be considered a reliable source according to Wikipedia standards (even if it seems a good guide, I have to admit), so it wouldn't be included anyway. Mushroom (Talk) 18:52, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Yeah that's great, all I really needed to know is that Wikipedia values cutting their links for their own selfish motives over putting real, relivent information on there. I guess I don't understand how links were on there for SIX MONTHS and now they're off, well, cause some Mushroom guy found them...I know those links did a lot of destructive things in those six months, like help people enjoy the game.

Strict policies are needed when there are 2 million users editing. If everyone added his or her site, Wikipedia would become a link directory a mess, and the 1000 admins wouldn't be able to fix it. But that is just my opinion, I didn't write the policy. And if you don't like it, you can make proposals on the appropriate page (specifically, Wikipedia talk:External links) and maybe it will be changed. Mushroom (Talk) 19:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm just saying if Wikipedia and their admins showed some consistency I wouldnt have an issue with it. But you pick and choose what you want to edit and that's what bothers me, because I had links on here for months and you take them off now. I'm pretty sure other admins ran across them and left them thinking "well, these are completely relivent to the game and don't detract from what's on here, so I'll keep them here because maybe someone cares about giving people help through walkthroughs". But everyone acts on their own accord whether they know the rules or not and obviously you're not the wise and thoughtful type but rather the grunt who follows orders ignorantly without any true comprehension of what would be better for each respective Wikipedia page. So keep letting some links slide and take out the others, who needs equity?

I know you're just the messenger but never in my experience as a webmaster have I seen a website (you) have a link for several months, and then take it off despite nothing being different in the guidelines.

And to give another example of this, look at this and tell me what's different between MobyGames and They have even more ads than I do and you left them on there! They aren't an official site nor do they have anything important on there whereas I tell you how to complete the entire game and get everything. So which site is more relivent? Expect your higher ups to hear about this because what you're doing is wrong and honestly makes it look like YOU have the alterior motive in keeping another site (mobygames) that has less relivence to the material on there over something that is a much more useful resource. Oh wait, you have such "strict policies" to make sure it's not a link directory yet you IGNORE these policies by deleting my site and leaving up another that is less useful and is "guilty" of the same "crimes" my site is. It's like you have no idea how to determine which site is credible or not because you're not smart about the niche, so you see Mobygames has a 7 PR and we have a 3 PR and you base it on that.

Expect your higher ups... This discussion is closed. Mushroom (Talk) 13:46, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Valet parking


I tried to explain it to you, but you don't seem to understand. If you just read Wikipedia:External links and Wikipedia:Spam you would see why those links are not appropriate. And please stop screaming. Mushroom (Talk) 13:34, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links - Fan Sites

I saw that you removed the links to the fan sites for the Alexz Johnson article. Personally, and as a matter of general practice, I don't see a problem with links to fan sites that contain useful and substantive content (e.g., news, discussions, and media), providing that they are clearly identified as fan sites: they do provide a useful jumping-off point for people who want to find out more, thereby providing readers with one more reason to check and read the Wikipedia articles. In general, I think that the best solution would simply be to have a subheading for Fan Sites under the general heading of External Links.

For Alexz Johnson, there is one main fan site (with over 12 million hits) that should be listed no matter what. I checked the Wikipedia policy on fan site - and including this one main site would be consistent with the policy. All in all, I think it would be best to have a subheading for Fan Sites, and to list the main site(s) first.


The external link guidelines say:
On articles about topics with many fansites, including a link to one major fansite may be appropriate, marking the link as such.
So yes, including a link to the main fan site is ok. But a subheading would attract more links to fan sites, and that would be against the guidelines. Mushroom (Talk) 13:30, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

External Links

Thanks for making your reasons clear here for removing links like the one of mine you did earlier. I will try better to make sure and add only content that is pertinent and verifiable. It sounds like you don't get alot of appreciation so, keep up the good work! Josh Clarkson 00:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Since I have started removing external links following the external link guidelines, people (especially spammers, but also some good-faith editors) have started attacking me. But I'm just trying to implement those guidelines, so thanks for understanding. Mushroom (Talk) 13:25, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

4Kids edits

Your edits to the article are not constructive and your failure of taking the matter to the talk page of the respective article indicates to me that your only doing it to boost your edit history and serves no useful purpose whatsoever. Please stop. 10:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

These four links:
Are not acceptable as per Links normally to be avoided, number 2:
Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
None of those self-published sites is verifiable or reliable, and furthermore they are non-notable. They could contain any kind of wrong, false, or misleading information. And deviantART? In no case Wikipedia articles should link to a flash video made by some non-notable author. Leaving those links in the article is a blatant violation of the guidelines. Mushroom (Talk) 13:22, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

BlueShizzTwo need to be stopped

Please stop this user BlueShizzTwo who try to promote everywhere on WikiPedia link to probably his own site. All history/contribution from that user are diferent links to articles from one site and nothing else and many of them does not make any sense (example contribution for proxy server).


Thanks for reporting him. I have warned him, and if he does it again I will block him. Mushroom (Talk) 13:41, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Running links and all that jazz

Hey, noticed that you reverted some ext links that I'd removed earlier. Clearly the user (the shop owner?!) didn't get the warning. Good work, hope to bump into you again - some of these external linkers are unbelievable - you may like to add Santorini to your watchlist - check out the history! Cheers! Budgiekiller 17:54, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Done. Lots of spammers on that article! And you're right, some spammers are incredible: they ignore you and when you say you will block them they suddenly say "I'm not a spammer, I did it in good faith" and then when you patiently explain WP:EL and WP:SPAM to them, they pretend they don't understand. But when you don't watch they restart spamming. It's crazy what they would do for a link on Wikipedia. I actually find it quite funny dealing with them. Tiring, but funny. Mushroom (Talk) 18:35, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
I would also like to give you encouragement in your anti-linkspam endeavours. I have received many of the same comments as you, such as "Wikipedia is supposed to provide unlimited knowledge, how dare you restrict that knowledge by removing my site?", "I work hard on my site and I think it is interesting, so it should be there", and "Just because I have a few ads doesn't mean that my site is commercial". However, these vanity publishers, while irritating and often monumentally defensive, at least only have an impact one or a few sites. The truly maddening are those who quite deliberately place their blatantly commercial sites all over Wikipedia, not least because they do not engage in any kind of debate at all. Well, now that I have got that off my chest, all the best and keep up the good work. --Bcnviajero 17:31, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks, I agree with you. Sometimes I get angry with vanity spammers because they start long discussions trying to convince you to add back those links, and they just don't accept a "no". But they are certainly not the worst kind of spammers: at least they try to understand how it works, and they can't get much more than some increased traffic from us. But the ones who link to commercial sites, they actually profit off our free project, and that's the worst thing they could do. That's why I feel our work is important. Happy spam removal! Mushroom (Talk) 22:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I never thought a linkspammer would bother to engage in a long discussion until:
Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)#Linkspammer trying to negotiate in_good faith - how to proceed? - and I am forced to admit he actually has a pretty informative web site. No admin has weighed in, and at least one person who isn't the owner now seems to want the link there, so perhaps it's OK.... -Amatulic 20:06, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
No, I don't think so. The person you are referring to added a link to that very same site some time ago. did the same, so they may be involved with the website, or be the owner from another IP address. And while the site can be informative, there is no special reason for which we should link to it instead of other websites covering the same subject. The fact that the owner has been kind and asked for permission doesn't change the external link guidelines, which say (links to normally be avoided, number 2):
  • Any site that contains factually inaccurate material or unverified original research, as detailed in Wikipedia:Reliable sources.
The site is self-published, so it can't be considered accurate or reliable. And it contains ads. And it provides the email addresses of tutors (who probably pay to have their names included). And it sells products. And more products. And so on. That link has no place in Wikipedia. Mushroom (Talk) 21:00, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Zelda image

Hello, I changed the image because the source of the original one is currently offline, so it can't be verified. The image I added was the official one according to IGN, I didn't know it was incorrect (though I noticed the different colors). I have now found this one on Amazon and it is similar to yours, but a bit darker. I don't understand why they are all different, but if you don't mind I would like to replace the current one with the one from Amazon (it's not watermarked). Mushroom (Talk) 01:40, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello Mushroom.
They've made it from this photo, which is an event where Nintendo officially showed it. The IGN one is too light, and the Amazone one is too dark. I think the Amazone one will do untill Land of the Legend is back. I'm just carefull on what is placed how and where, since there are so many different.
Thank you for watching out for it though. Happy editting! JackSparrow Ninja 01:46, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
I have found a better one, still on Amazon. It's almost identical to the one from Land of Legend, so I have uploaded it. Happy editing! Mushroom (Talk) 01:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Ace! Thanks for letting me know. JackSparrow Ninja 02:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Quick Question

I'm hoping you can give me some advice/guidance for future editing. In the last couple months, I've been an active contributor for the Risk article, and I've observed a lot of what I would call link spam. Thankfully, you recently removed a whole lot of those links, but I've already noticed more popping up. I've read the WP:EL page, and I'm afraid that it isn't clear enough for me.

The exact link that I'm ambivalent about is Invade Earth. It would be easy to remove if smileygames wasn't open-source and not-for-profit. I'm not really up on my copyright law, but I'm 100% sure that smiley's implementation violates copyright, and I don't know what Wikipedia's stance is on links to such media. (For instance, the perpetually linked Risk II download is a pirate binary as far as I can tell.) I noticed that you spend most of your time dealing with external links, so I'm hoping that you don't mind the bother of helping me once you return from your hiatus. Thanks, Dan Slotman 23:32, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The article about Risk should contain only external links to:
Any other external link should be removed. Regarding specifically the Invade Earth link, it has no place in the Risk article because it is not about Risk. It could only go into an article about Invade Earth itself, but that article doesn't exist because Invade Earth is non-notable. In addition to this, if that game violates copyright, linking to it is explicitly forbidden by the external link guidelines. Linking to a pirate binary of Risk II is forbidden as well.
I have now removed the latest spam and cleaned up the "Computer implementations and video games" section. I will also monitor the article in the future to prevent new spam additions. Mushroom (Talk) 22:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for your quick response. With the justification of these links I and other regular editors of Risk should be able to take care of most of the spam for you, though you are welcome to monitor as you like obviously. (Invade Earth actually is related to Risk in that it is an exact clone, down to the map and classic vs. 2210 implementations, but I appreciate your point. Hence, it must violate copyright.) Dan Slotman 00:58, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
You're welcome. Hopefully we will be able to keep this article spam-free. Mushroom (Talk) 01:15, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

User Likes

How do I add those boxes that say what I like, such as baseball?

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Help and Guidance

Hello again, Mushroom. I'm turning to you for help and guidance. I was recently auto blocked for 24 hours over a dispute on the Stalin page. You will find all the details, with my response, on my talk page. I have still no clear idea what's happening here; and as far as I can see I have done nothing wrong, and violated no Wikipedia policy. I would now like to register a complaint against what seems to be a clear abuse of administrative powers, but I'm finding to difficult to cut through the bureaucratic undergrowth. Can you offer some assistance? White Guard 00:04, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I understand that this can be discouraging, especially for a new user. In my opinion, your edits were justified, considering the fact that Jacob Peters was heavily editing the article without any explanation or discussion; the administrator should have noticed this and asked him to discuss his edits on the talk page, or maybe he could have protected the article. You weren't even informed of the block on your talk page, and that's not fair.
Having said that, it's still possible that the admin blocked you in good faith, seeing that you had made three reverts. While you didn't violate the three-revert rule, remember that:
"The three-revert rule is not an entitlement [...] Reverting fewer than four times may result in a block depending on context".[1]
So maybe the admin was trying to stop the edit war, and he (mistakenly) blocked both of you because of this. That's a possibility.
But if you believe that the administrator acted in bad faith and blocked you on purpose, here are some things that you can do:
Unfortunately I'm not an expert in dispute resolution, so there's not much more that I can do to help you. However, feel free to contact me if you need anything. Mushroom (Talk) 01:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


I did already leave message to you about User:BlueShizzTwo and his spamming of wikipedia with only one site.

Now it looks that he or his friend do same thing on wikipedia and is registered as User:DNS7. Ive already removed same link (again) that was contributed by proxy server.

Thanks, I have blocked indefinitely all these related spam accounts:
There are also some related IP addresses, I'll keep an eye on them. Mushroom (Talk) 20:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Fan Films link removal

Hello there,

I've left a comment on the Fan films talk page regarding a recent edit of yours. I'd appreciate your input, as it were. --IanIanSymes 19:59, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have answered on the article's talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 20:37, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

List of Prefixes in the English language

Why did you delete "List of prefixes in the English language". My son used this link frequently and it was very useful. This is very inconvenient and unnecessary.

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 21:19, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you

[Barnstar moved to user page]
Wow! Thanks, and congratulations. Mushroom (Talk) 14:27, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


Its a fact not an opinion.

I have answered on your talk page. Mushroom (Talk) 03:39, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Homo erectus

thanks for reverting the image vandal on the 'homo erectus' page. S.

You're welcome :) Mushroom (Talk) 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Music Nation

You deleted the Music Nation page I created and cited a copyright violation. Can you please clarify what problem you see with this page?

The second sentence was copied from here. I deleted it in accordance with CSD G12, since there were no non-infringing revisions. Mushroom (Talk) 13:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
My mistake... I thought you could post news headlines as long as you linked to the page. I'll revise. Thanks for pointing me in the right direction!
You're welcome. You can read Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information about Wikipedia's copyright policy. Mushroom (Talk) 17:59, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


Mushroom, I have reverted linkspam added by User: Looking at the contribution history, this IP is adding links to 1 or 2 articles per minute! This is clearly a spambot for Can you block? It's getting tiring. =Axlq 17:17, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Nevermind, he seems to have stopped. Might want to block for 24 hours; I realize you can't indef block an IP address. =Axlq 17:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
I see User:Pschemp has blocked him two minutes ago. Hopefully he won't return. Mushroom (Talk) 17:44, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Some more spammers:
Unfortunately they don't seem to be open proxies, so they can't be blocked indefinitely. Mushroom (Talk) 18:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, they all belong to Looks like dynamic IP addresses from an ISP.
You know, all the linkspam I have seen added to "External links" sections comes from anonymous addresses. It seems to me that semi-protection of "External links" as a general policy would be useful, provided it's possible to do that with a section rather than an entire article. =Axlq 18:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that would be a good idea. Maybe spammers would start adding their links inside the articles, but at least they would be immediately recognized as spam by anyone and removed. Unfortunately it's not technically possible to protect a single section right now. Mushroom (Talk) 19:09, 21 October 2006 (UTC)