User talk:Linkspamremover

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		Good work keeping the spamvertisements off the wiki. — Mar. 29, '06 [21:52] <freakofnurxture[[special:contributions/freakofnurture	]]talk>

Thanks! -- Linkspamremover 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've noticed that you have caught some of today's spam at Sildenafil. Would you mind listing the offending website at the sitewide spam blacklist? I tried, but for some reason my IP address is blocked from editing that site. Thanks. --Ed (Edgar181) 14:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting hundreds and hundreds of links? Oh nevermind, it looks like what you are doing is legit.Travb 08:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am helping to remove external link spam from Wikipedia. Please check my edit history to see how many hundred spam links I have removed, and how few (if any) mistakes I have made. When I saw someone inserting the same link throughout lots of articles, linking to a store selling a video, I assumed it was link spam. Actually I'm still not convinced otherwise, but if you think I made a mistake with these six edits, that's fine. -- Linkspamremover 08:46, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was wrong, you were right, you can revert my edits.Travb 06:28, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is my relevant information being deleted? --User:AltFree

Replied at User talk:AltFree

Keep up the good work. You might want to consider adding repeat offenders that ignore warnings to my linkspam watchlist --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:46, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why are you deleting my link Linkspamremover? You've messaged me that I should add content instead of linking to my personal page. My personal page isn't even a commerical website, unlike some of the other links on this page like Kaneesha.com or massala.com or sareeonline.com. How come you let those be, and delete mine? —This unsigned comment was added by 72.79.90.253 (talk • contribs) .

Replied at User talk:72.79.90.253

I was crosschecking links for the Grantville Gazette eMagazines which are later released both as cannonical ebooks and later published works in the SF 1632 series , when I noted your Bot is constantly making the same edit in the ebook article. I'm rearranging the commonly pasted spam line, as the reference is certainly correctly placed in this article under the eBook Devices heading... which is where your Bot is killing the reference. I'd keep it on patrol however, as the spam form is certainly marketing POV hype.

Best Regards FrankB 20:13, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On your last (Answer seeking clarification), I'm in the middle of a full article section add on the subject article ebooks (1st preview since your post). I infact, haven't picked up the sony related marketing phrase I was going to add, so since you aren't a Bot, I'll just leave you with the advice intended: what I saw deleted in the history, looks to be something that should be kept under devices, albeit massaged so that it is not marketing hype.

• Unless, of course, in my humble ignorance of devices it has already been so disposed of. I would have cross checked before finishing the main business at hand.
• Give me a few more minutes to finish up (I'm slowish), and if you accept email, I'll alert you both ways that I'm clear. Then you can vet my edit and perhaps give me some advice on related matters. I prefer the email for these little notifications as I get an audible beep which doesn't require backing up to the last preview or 'Yet another' Wiki browser window to service (At the moment, I sit with 15 such on my taskbar, so not opening another helps keep them straight, for which, I need all the help I can get!)
• Apparently you aren't accepting email. I've duly registered mine, and it's listed on my talk top.
• Thanks, Best Regards FrankB 21:27, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I'm out. Had some trouble locating links. If you're an admin, please speedy move eMagazines to eMagazine (singular), which will tidy up three of the redlinks. I'll section edit to clear the rest once I get a few other windows closed.

What do you think - I thought the Baen approach noteworthy, but didn't think it belongs higher as it contrasts this way with the preceding discussions of the termoils, whereas this way, it doesn't directly collide with them. There are rumbles that Baen's footsteps are being followed by some of the rest of that genre's publishers. So, this is perhaps the new standard as well. Time will tell! <G>

TTFN FrankB 22:51, 1 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • I see I'm not the only one confused as to whether you are a Bot! Doing something on the user page seems a good thought. I'm taking the day off from the computer and wiki, so I'll look at your last in detail tomarow some time. I just printed the guideline you referenced. I'm a little off my normal patrol in my current WikiAtivity (Center of Focus), but that's as it was most neglected. I need to get a thankyou (why I'm here at all) email off, and go back to my rest. ttfn I'll get back on the rest after me rest! FrankB 00:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good Day - The below looks like you've been busy. After checking through your second post, I agree, see what the edit consensus says. Regarding this: and I have had a chance to read the article and understand the context of this publisher you seem keen to mention (and I'm sure you'll say they're very important - and I'm sure they are)., I think characterizing them as very important would be a bit histronic and more than a smidge unprofessional. I deem them an interesting (and perhaps eventually historic) counter-point (contrast) to much of the article which deals with the measures publishers and manufacturers are trying to protect their intellectual copyrights. Whereas this publisher has found gold in the opposite approach —it increases sales, not looses them to piracy—when the early works are offered free. I can steer you to some webpages making this assertion.

• • Sorry I misread your involvement level in the article. At a glance, you seemed to be editing it often, so the courtesy of the notification opening this. I think I'll cut the threads onto the talk, as that seems to be a good way to have others think on the contrast in 'automatic mode'.

Cheers! FrankB 17:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replies at User talk:Fabartus

Also confused about the removal of links that point to extremely relevant content pages. I noticed that other listed links point to similar pages that don't feature as informative content.

I also noticed that some sites have links on tons of Wiki pages. What contract must they have to do that?

casbboy

• In the case of X-Men 3, you have a link to a site that only has a link to the trailer. I linked to a page that features every update, news report, headline, trailer, clip and whatever other media revolving around the film. Casbboy 03:06, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replied at User talk:Casbboy

I have been placing relevant links back to my website and you have been deleting them. They have been relevant to the topic and are not commercial. We do have simple advertisements, but we are not bombarding our visitors with ads. We are also providing a service that is quite useful. We are trying to grow the site and have plenty of upgrades in content planned in the near future. —This unsigned comment was added by Ricardo1064 (talk • contribs) .

This ↑ appears to have been your first ever edit. More information might help. Also, come back after you have read WP:EL and WP:SPAM. Links added to your own website, or for your own promotional benefit, or links added to sites whose main purpose is to promote a service, will not usually be entertained. -- Linkspamremover 18:08, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have been linking to content that is relevant on every single topic. If the information were not pertinent I would not be wasting my time. I understand the poicly on commercial websites, but this is a link back to an informational website. In the WP:EL in the "What should be linked to" section rules 5 and 6 apply to what I am trying to put on the page. —This unsigned comment was added by Ricardo1064 (talk • contribs) .

You still haven't mentioned which links you are talking about. -- Linkspamremover 00:12, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The link to www.removingspywareforfree.com in the spyware section. The website is well organized in tutorials and we are digigently working on making more additions in tutorials.—This unsigned comment was added by Ricardo1064 (talk • contribs) .

So you are this user. Your link, and rather short tutorials, all seem to lead pointedly to the sale of the products being referred to, and I reached the conclusion (and appear not to be the only editor with this view, and you appear to have confirmed this above) that you are inserting these links for your own benefit and not the benefit of Wikipedia, or Wikipedians, or the readers. Wikipedia is not a repository for links, and we would prefer you add content instead of linking to your own site. WRT the guidelines for external links, your link seems to fail on links to normally avoid numbers 2, 3, 4, and 5. -- Linkspamremover 07:26, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please don't insult my intelligence as I have been polite. My tutorials cover every aspect of each product, when users are stumped they are encouraged to post in the forum so we can help provide them with solutions to their problem. Nowhere in the website does it say "BUY THIS AND WE'LL HELP YOU". I am benefitting anyone who uses wikipedia to solve their online security issues. I am pointing directly to tutorials for the most known programs in solving online security. I am not saying BUY THIS, I am saying this is how you can use this to prevent spyware, adware, viruses, and trojans. While I do have a small percentage of advertisements, compared to what can be on there, it does cost money to run websites, even wiki has a price. Since I am nowhere near recovering any of that yet, or any of the money that would equate to the time that was spent creating the site. I don't see where you can say I am a "commercial" website when I'm trying to recover costs. Not make millions. While it may look amatuer to many, it's come along way and there are more plans to grow it in the near future with more and more content about online security. Everyone has to start somewhere.—This unsigned comment was added by Ricardo1064 (talk • contribs) .

I am neither insulting you, nor calling you amateur or commercial. I am saying your external link falls within the criteria for links to normally avoid, and it is not appropriate for this encyclopaedia. -- Linkspamremover 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I can't change opinions, thanks. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Ricardo1064 (talk • contribs) .

Hi, I have a question. Is this a bot which is running, a role account, or simply just a Wikipedian using a username dedicated to performing one task? As this account seems to be performing just one kind of action, could you put some information on the user page detailing what you are doing? Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 22:04, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I've blocked this account for 3 hours pending some information from the account owner. I suspect this is a bot, and it's not one which has been given permission to run on Wikipedia:Bots. Could we get some more information here? Talrias (t | e | c) 01:58, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I'm a Wikipedian who really makes each edit with a mixture of pleasure and pain. Information on the userpage is being prepared (Can you think of something better than I am not a bot, stop spamming Wikipedia?) -- Linkspamremover 02:06, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

While we're waiting, would you be so kind as to remove the spam being put in the Credit card article. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 02:31, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies for the misunderstanding. We will get things sorted out shortly. - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 02:35, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Linkspamremover, thanks for explaining. I'm sorry for having to block you and I hope you will carry on your good work in future! Thanks, Talrias (t | e | c) 10:24, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know where to best get guidance on this and I've noticed that some commercial links have been removed by this user. My problem is sites like bankrate.com and bankcd.com get a "free ride" because they don't charge for their services. However, they are not non-profit. They make a lot of money from the advertisements on their pages. Our company has chosen to be ad-free, but we still have to make $. If you look at the page for "Certificate of Deposit" and the external links you will see what I am talking about. None of the pages in the section are non-profit. cdduncan 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi. Since this ↑ is also apparently your first edit, I assume you are this user and this user as well (I don't understand - you've chosen to be ad-free but your site has Google Ads at the top?). I agree there are too many external links in the Certificate of deposit article, and I intend to (and have asked other editors to) return to it at some point to clean it out. Frankly right now we do not need any more external links in any of the articles you are putting your link into. You will find plenty of relevant information at WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:WPSPAM. In particular there is a general consensus in Wikipedia that you should not put in links to your own pages. -- Linkspamremover 16:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The user you assumed me to be is not me. Since I am new I don't know how to get my signature at the bottom of these posts. My user id is cdduncan and I have just recently created an account. What ever website you looked at is not ours. And to avoid being deemed as spam I will not post it here either. I have never posted a link to our website because I knew it wouldn't be viewed as acceptable. It is a very competitive market. I do believe if one commercial website gets a link than others should too. An ad cluttered site is as commercial as no ads.

I retract the relevant comments, and hope I didn't offend you. You will see from the Deleting my link discussion above what sometimes happens. You can sign your messages by using four tildes like: ~~~~. You were commenting that there are links to commercial sites. First you will notice that the external links at the Certificate of deposit article have been mostly cleaned out. Apart from government sites I think there is one there to provide current rates, which are normally only available from profit sites and are difficult to keep updating in an encyclopaedia. Unfortunately people will continue to place commercial links there, even when there are free, or less commercial, alternatives, and they are constantly being removed. If you know of any better resources you might wish to mention them either on the article's talk page, or even in an edit summary. However it is important to recognise that Wikipedia should be filled with content and not links. Unfortunately there has to be a balance struck, and most entities in this world are commercial to some extent. It's discussed in the links I provided earlier, particularly in WP:EL and its talk page. I do not share your view that if one commercial website is listed that all others should be. -- Linkspamremover 21:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I just noticed a mistake in this removal: [1]. Maybe it's because of the ampersand? Thanks. - Liberatore(T) 16:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK thanks (I am not a bot). The edit was intentional, in part because it served to highlight the spamming tactic and persistence of the previous editor (the ITO code - see this edit), and partly because the resource being pointed to (a video) initially looked like it could be useful to the article. Other editors have since reviewed the resource and consider it spammy, and I have no complaints there, and will remove any similar links I see. -- Linkspamremover 16:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspamremover, would you consider restoring this ecotourism.gordonsguide.com rv'd link to the Ecotourism article? According to this article it is acceptable to have a link to web directories, which is what the link is.--Ggman 18:16, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. Excuse the delay - I have been busy. You are not quoting the full guidelines - "...a link to one web directory listing can be added, with preference to open directories". I removed the link because it appears to offer little more than a directory of locations and - sales brochures. It therefore appears to fail the WP:EL guidelines instantly as a site promoting a (commercial?) service (#4). But also there is at least one directory listed there already. Which unique resource does the link add that would not fit into this encyclopaedia? Granted, there are some nice pictures, but probably nothing that isn't already in Wikipedia or the Commons. Further, the article appears to be approaching the Spam Event Horizon and the links will probably be cleaned out soon anyway. Wikipedia is not a repository for links. You are encouraged to add content instead of links. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 18:50, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally I get the impression that the site is your own, and that is definitely a non-starter. -- Linkspamremover 18:56, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the reply. The site is actually just a directory of ecotourism companies and does not book, sell or otherwise arrange or benefit from transactions made by the ecotourism companies and the visitor. Sales brochures are requested from the ecotourism company themselves. I'm not aware of another directory in this article. The site offers a directory of actual companies around the world that offer ecotours, it is a great example of real global ecotourism. I do work for the company that runs that site, but it is not mine. I just thought it was fitting for this article. (By the way, the pictures are unique and copyright protected)

Again, thanks for the response.--Ggman 21:36, 5 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All right. I made a mistake which I am now correcting. I unwittingly linked my homepage to this article because I forgot to type /2.html after the web address. I am now adding the full address. Hope this works. If not, please tell me. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shiahs (talk • contribs) .

See comment below -- Linkspamremover

Hello, linkspamremover,

Why are you removing my links. They link to content based pages very relevant to the topic of discussion. Then what gives? Am I not allowed to link pages which have discussions on the very topic to which they are linked. I am very confused by your actions. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shiahs (talk • contribs) .

Please do not add links to your own site. Please read WP:EL to understand why your links are being removed. -- Linkspamremover 11:27, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Dear sir, Am I not allowed to add a link even if it leads to a very relevant article? The paid survey link that you removed is not only very relevant it also raises concern about and describes scams, something that can be really relevant to the topic. The freelance work link again was to a very simple FAQ style article which would surely have helped anyone wanting to start working as a freelancer. So why is relevance of no importance? Just for my knowledge, if the same links were posted by someone else would they still be removed? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Shiahs (talk • contribs) .

Very probably, yes. Your site contains little or no content which could not be put into this encyclopaedia, and also contains an objectionable amount of advertising. It seems clear to me from all the referrer links everywhere that this link is being placed into this encyclopaedia to promote the website, and as such will be considered spam. Please contribute content instead of links. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 15:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The site also contains affiliate links to survey companies. I've removed it yet again. --GraemeL ^(talk) 15:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello,

You have been removing my link on the 'pre-birth party' page recently, but the link points to a site which contain much useful and relevant contents related to the topic. Care to explain why? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rqacc2 (talk • contribs) .

Your site (baby-shower-theme dot net) which is being put into multiiple pages appears to be a commercial operation with products for sale and an objectionable amount of advertising. Additionally you, and other accounts trying to place this link, have been putting other spammy links into other pages. Why not add content instead of links. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 09:04, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are mistaken. there are no products for sale on my site, only an ebook which I give to donators of the site. Please look over it more carefully and don't just tell me it APPEARS to be commercial.

After reading through you talk page, I have this to say about advertising, you know that almost all sites out there uses some form of contextual advertising nowadays, it's just one of the avenues that serious webmasters rely on to continue to provide great contents to their visitors.

Does it mean that every site like mine that has minimal and simple ads on them are spammy and objectionable to you? Spam sites do exist and will continue to plague Wikipedia but there is a great difference between a genuine site with ads and a spam site with ads.

If you are simply going to delete sites with advertising, regardless of the true contents they provide, you are NOT helping Wikipedia to grow, rather you are only limiting Wikipedia users access to more useful information available elsewhere.

Also I did not place any spammy links into other pages, the reason why I place the links on the articles 'Birth Weight', 'Baby Care' & 'Infant' is simply because my site do provide relevant information to them which, I unfortunately cannot add in whole or in parts to Wikipedia due to original content rights.

As taken from WP:EL:

"Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article."

So, please use more common sense with your reviews. To me, you're just deleting sites which YOU believe are spammy, even if they are indeed useful to the Wikipedia community. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rqacc2 (talk • contribs) .

All of your edits have either been adding external links, or complaining when those links are removed. Please contribute to the encyclopedia instead of trying to use it to advertise external sites. --GraemeL ^(talk) 16:34, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not advertising and neither am I complaining about links removal. I just feel that your practise of removing sites needs to be corrected by other users as well. I cannot contribute directly due to above mentioned reason, but is there a rule that says users cannot add useful links just because they did not contribute?

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rqacc2 (talk • contribs) .

Have received your message, I don't see why you must consider a genuine site to be spam without a proper reply... I guess it's just a waste of time reasoning with some extremely overprotective fanboys like you.

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rqacc2 (talk • contribs) .

You incorrectly removed the link to the Anahata Yoga home page in the article Anahata Yoga. Anahata Yoga is an original method of yoga with a school accredited by the Yoga Alliance. More than 100 teachers across the US and the world now teach this method. It is reasonable to link to the Anahata Yoga site. It is not link spam to do so.

FROM WP:EL

"What should be linked to

1. Articles about any organization, person, or other entity should link to their official site, if they have one."

If you feel the article itself is spam, please nominate it as a candidate for deletion. Either the article is legit, and also its external link, or both the link and the article or spam.

FROM WP:WPSPAM

How to identify spam and spammers

1. User is anonymous (an IP address)

   no

2. User:page and/or User_talk:page are red links

   no

3. No edit summary (other than, perhaps /* External links */)

   no

4. User has made only one edit, which consisted of inserting a link

   no

5. User has made multiple edits to related articles

   yes, but not simply to ad links

6. The majority of user's edits are to external links sections

   no

7. The link is a site that has Google/Yahoo ads (AdSense/SM). Typically the link will contain no more information that in the Wikipedia article itself

   no

8. Edits are marked "minor"

   not unless they are minor

9. Link is trying to sell a product or service.

   no

10. User adds links to the top of a section, above far more relevant sites

    no

11. User replaces an existing link or part of an existing link.

    no

12. The syntax of the added link does not match the syntax used in the rest of the list

    no

13. User adds links to inappropriate sections of articles ("References", "See also", "For more information")

    no

14. User adds links that have been previously removed, without discussing on the talk page.

    no

15. Following a link takes you to a site that does not mention the specific topic of the page containing the link.

    no

16. Link is unrelated, or only marginally related to the article. For example, link on a biography to a specific page on a genealogy site describing the person's genealogy, but not the person.

    no

17. User adds links to other Wikipedia articles where he/she has already placed spam links.

    no

18. User includes within the link description, "hosted on example.com" with a separate link to example.com.

    no

19. Link is mangled. The spammer may be new to Wikipedia and not be familiar with Wikipedia syntax for external links.

    no

20. Text of the link goes beyond describing the contents to actively encouraging you to read it. For example, including text such as, "Read more about [subject] in [this fascinating article]"

    no

I am rv'ing the link.

--Nemonoman 06:08, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you appear to be correct. The link provided no indication of the significance to the school, and didn't appear to be to offer much apart from, I quote the menu: "history, schedule, teacher training, workshops, retreats, store, and contact". It would fail WP:EL if it wasn't the 'official' link. Considering the significance of the link, you are right to put it back. Perhaps you could provide a suitable description for it. -- Linkspamremover 08:20, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This user messed up horizontal scrolling. I changed to a list. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:51, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Was removed link at Cigarettes - Cigarettes News, Forum and Information. Why? It is real site with Cigarettes/Tobacco News, RSS, Forum. Or only sites that fight against tobacco can be linked? Link to site was for a 2 month and every think was, ok. Is it freedom, or not? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Delta35 (talk • contribs) .

It appears to be a commercial retail enterprise. See WP:EL. -- Linkspamremover 10:34, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your message.

Artnet has an enormous amount of fine art content; content that in general can not be directly added to the Content section of Wikipedia articles. Visitors to Wikipedia's artist articles can visit artnet to view artist images, including artworks currently for sale and historical records of artworks sold in auctions. Visitors can also see galleries that represent the artist or artist estate, current and past exhibitions, and extensive biographies. We're an important research tool, used by the art world in the US and abroad.

I notice that you allow Artcyclopedia.com and Artfacts.net to post links on Wikipedia. Their format is similar to ours, however we have more content and images. I also saw that the commercial gallery Gagosian had a link posted on the Frank Stella page as well. Is there a reason why they are allowed to post?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Painting http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Stella

Can you tell me the best way to make our material available to your users doing artist research?

Thank you, Sarah --Scarah2 22:27, 10 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. Having reviewed your link it does appear to have some relevant additional content, and the subscription is not as prominently commercial as it appeared to me to be at first sight. Please try not to place it into every art-related article. -- Linkspamremover 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A couple days ago, I was reviewing the article for MySQL and noticed an external links section. There were software products listed galore but no section for service providers that could actually make this software go for you. As I am the president of a company providing just such a service, I thought it would add value and content to the article to let the reader know that an objection to adopting this software (that you could not manage and maintain it) could be tackled in this manner.

I understand that this is not an advertising medium. I'm disappointed because the policy is not applied evenly (software products are OK, services are not?) and it strikes me that this process and policy is more of a destructive force than a constructive one.

Yours truly, Paul —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Paulvallee (talk • contribs) .

Hello Linkspamremover, I am still acutely interested in your comments. I've seen you do the right thing for garage door openers and removing or replacing commercial links. I've been back here every day waiting for your feedback on why commercial software facilitating keeping mysql running is acceptable, however service providers specializing in production engineering for mysql are not. I'm OK with all of these being deleted but I'm not OK with mine only being deleted arbitrarily, and frankly although I'm OK with them all being deleted, I still think the article's value will not be improved by such an action. I am still of the opinion that a major objection to adopting mysql requires addressing. I've learned how to sign my comments and I'm trying to play by the rules, I've not added any links back or anything, and I've noticed you removed my links (and no-one else's!) on the two other pages too; all were directly related and relevant and can not possible qualify as link spam. Please, let's come up with something sane on this subject.

Thanks,

Paul Paulvallee 13:57, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Paul. Excuse the delay as I was yet again diverted. It's my understanding (correct me if I'm wrong) that the software listed at MySQL is all open source, and/or free. Actually, I see one commercial software link there, which I will remove forthwith. Only one? You can remove it yourself you know. I think you understand that an encyclopaedia is not the right place to list service and support companies. Am I right? If you want to address/mention the "major objections to MySQL adoption", I'm sure you can go right ahead and edit the article, but a link to a service provider would have to contain some very relevant and unique material that could not be put in the article. You mentioned two other pages? -- Linkspamremover 16:40, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. One of my points was that removing all of those links will not improve the article's value to the community. Could you address that? On another note, re the free/open-source point you make, perhaps I am missing something? Do open-source packages get a bye on the linking policy all? I read it carefully and it's not mentioned as an exemption.

Thanks, Paul Paulvallee 18:53, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again Paul. I believe the point about commercial links is adequately covered in WP:EL. There are two key words I'll offer in reply which I don't know if I can really add to - free encyclopaedia. If you wish to discuss this concept further I suggest you post something to the talk pages at WP:EL, WP:SPAM, or WP:WPSPAM. -- Linkspamremover 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

what link i may add to this page? thanks —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.208.200.13 (talk • contribs) .

You should consult WP:EL which has guidelines about external links. You should not add a site for the purpose of making money with AdSense, and if there is relevant content on your website then you should add it to the encyclopaedia instead. Thanks. -- Linkspamremover 15:58, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

hello,

i have a concern, if I am the number one site for information on garage door opener and my competitor has links on the same page that I am try to supply links to for user infor on buying a garage door opener, what kind of title should i use? how about.. "Confused about garage door openers?" then the link to our site? We offer FREE tech help and online support. Yet aaaremotes.com has 2 links on the page that seem to qualify..

thanks in advance,

Kylae Jordan —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mrthinker (talk • contribs) .

Replied at User talk:Mrthinker

Hello,

Once apon a time the wikipedia community approved of Cookbookwiki links on each Cuisine page that cookbookwiki expanded on. Then yesterday, when Cookbookwiki updated their links to keep them accurate due to structure changes at cookbookwiki (part of our agreement with the article writers and admins was to keep them updated or they would get removed) someone comes by and classifies them as spam and removes them! Alot of these links where added by the original authors, some where new updates.

Ironic. Anyways. Plese let me know what I need to do to straiten this out and get these resource links back.

Our site is 100% commercial free and in the same spirit as wikipedia and wikibooks. What is the difference? The fact that we updated them?

LOL.

Let me know your opinion on this matter so we can work this out.

Robert Eaton Wikimanager 15:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Did you read WP:SPAM? Such are the problems when a) placing promotional links off-site to many (70+) related articles b) using an IP address then a (rather curiously named) user account who have no other edits than to add these links and c) not using edit summaries. I previously searched for this previous consensus you mention, and can basically point to 8 or 9 occasions of you promoting your site on users' talk pages [2] asking for help ("Your help is needed ... I have a cooking wiki already established that is in need of a few good contributors. I would be interested in giving Admin rights to a few good contributors..."), without much reaction at all - maybe a slight negative reaction in the case of you promoting your site with numerous links into country articles. What am I missing? I offer no solution other than the link to Wikibooks previously offered on your talk pages (and already sufficiently contained in many of the edited articles). You may wish to attempt to redress the current consensus at WP:SPAM. hth. -- Linkspamremover 16:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I see your point. But we already had this discussion last summer. Not sure where it was located, but according to previous talks, we were allowed to maintain these links as long as they are posted in "External Links" under the cuisine page. The discussion earlier was wiether we actually contributed value or not to these sections and it was decided our links were appropriate. We just wanted them to be accurate and not dead ends when we switched our structure around. I apoligize for any inconvience this may have caused you personally as a link patroller. I understand... I have the same duties. As for restoring links, I am not too worried about this, I just would like to be honest and open. We are not spammers that hit and run. We are just trying to keep the data accurate and up to date for these cuisines. Why leave any external links at all? If this is the policy. These pages are valuable to your data structure. Or at least it use to be. But now we are being punished because we updated all our links?

And we are just trying to recruit some help, not promote a free site when it comes to the user talk pages. In fact. You are also welcome to stop by and help admin if you wish! I could sure use your help and dedication to wiki!

Wikimanager 17:51, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's just note that edit for posterity -- Linkspamremover 18:07, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

LOL.. no problem... anyways... on to better things! 
Catch ya later! Did you catch the noob remark earlier as well! LOL.
You sure take your job seriously. Must be a real job! How much are
they paying you to police?
Wikimanager 19:46, 19 April 2006 (UTC) and AKA the IP 
address noted above. Whichever you wish to remember me by![reply]

Hello Linkspamremover (fitting name lol)!

I know the following text is long (no kiddin'), but I thought I'd rather present the details upfront than having you guessing them. There is no "Due Date" which means, that there is no need to rush and the need of dropping the things you are currently doing :). I'd rather have you take your time with it when you have it and are also in the mood for it, than rushing over it without giving it much thought and dumping it on the done pile.

Introduction and Summary

I am looking for Wikipedians that are interested in and knowledgeable about the Issue of Link Spam at Wikipedia to express their opinion about some of my recommendations to reduce it based on my research and experiences with it due to my professional background. After checking your personal and some other Talk Pages (not to mention your nick name) I came to believe, that you one of them, that fits the "profile" perfectly :). I don't think we had the pleasure yet, but I have the feeling that we will bump into each other a bit more in the future to tackle and overcome some mutual issues.

Here is the original Article at my User Talk Page. You will also find all posts from "WikiProject:Spam Talk Page" until know there (I copied it). It is probably the best place to start.

Please have a look at the following Paragraph at WikiProject:Spam Talk Page for comments made after I wrote THIS message to you:

How to save hundreds or thousands of hours by spending just a few

My Opinion and my Request to you

It seems to be an "old" and "done" subject, Even a vote about 15 months ago was conducted about it. All what I found out and collected about it makes it seem like an open issue rather than a thing that was settled for good. Too few facts were presented and not much (if any) quantifiable/measurable information were provided.

I would like you do go over the stuff I collected and consolidated so far and provide your point of view regarding this. If you have already done so in the past, simply reference to it that I can check it out.

I am also looking for some statistical information to be able to assess the real extent of the problem (and not just the felt one) as well as it's development over an extended period of time. If you have already anything like this or know how to get it, let me know. If you don't, but can point me into directions and/or people that can, let me know as well.

Tech-Stuff

It's really appreciated. You can get technical with me, I have the necessary background for it. You can check that on my User Page. I come the Microsoft/IIS/SQL Server/VB/.NET Environment, but I have some general understanding of the technology and ideas behind it which are mostly platform independent. I do know basic PHP and also installed recently the latest MediaWiki Version 1.5.8 and MySQL Server for Windows Version 5.0.19 on a Windows 2003 Server with IIS6 and PHP5 Extension. I can use this installation for some Tests or Script Development which den might be used at the Live Wikipedia. Probably Scripts for Data Collection and Assessment only. I do not intend to develop anything to make changes to processes and features of Wikipedia.org. If it happens that something that could be used in the future comes out of it, fine. I do not intend to write anything for myself, whatever comes out of it will be Public Domain (Open Source without any restriction for it's use at all).

My Intensions and Goals

I wrote similar Invitations on Talk Pages of other Wikipedia I came across, but this one is the most detailed version of it in regards to explaining my intentions and purpose of the whole thing in great length and depth. I would appreciate, if you would invite other interested Wikipedians that are authorities in this area to give their input as well. I would like to keep the ones, that only know little details and have only general/common knowledge about this kind of stuff out of the discussion for now to prevent it from getting dispersed right at the beginning and turned into a rhetoric discussion. Nothing will come out of it, if only one "belief" group argues against another, based on speculations and feeling rather than facts and solid numbers. An open for all discussion will have to happen at some point in time, but it should be later, when enough data and information are available to have some solid ground for a general discussion for everybody that gets at least a chance to end in actions that will benefit everybody at Wikipedia and its many users in the long run.

Sincerely --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 05:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cumbrowski. I'm interested in this discussion, and hope to chip in something soon. In the meantime, let me know if you want any specific feedback. I tend to see a lot of spam. -- Linkspamremover 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

		The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
		Thank you for your great work in removing spam. It's akin to vandalism in my eyes. Nikkelitous 13:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! -- Linkspamremover 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for helping make those changes to GraemeL's watchlist. Here's an invitation for you (I'm surprised you're not on the members list already):

Hello, Linkspamremover. Thanks for your help removing linkspam from Wikipedia! If you're interested, come visit us at WikiProject Spam and help fight linkspammers on Wikipedia. Addbot (talk) 02:49, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TheJabberwock 15:53, 21 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be right along. -- Linkspamremover 14:16, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a suggestion: sign your posts, perhaps? — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 23:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you (I am not a bot). Missing the sig on 1 out of 350 user talk pages isn't too bad really. -- Linkspamremover 23:57, 22 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

lol... I misread the banner at the top of your page saying that you were not a bot. Gosh, I am dumb. :P Great job anyways, though. — Ian Manka Talk to me‼ 01:02, 23 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you removed a recently added link to a commercial site in the Aerostat. I edit several pages on lighter-than-air aircraft and have made a habit of including external links to manufacturers and such because I think they are a good source of further information and there are so few companies that one can reasonably include a list of all companies in a particular business. My sense is that this doesn't consitute wikispamming, but I'm willing to be educated.

As it happens, both of the other external links in Aerostat go to commercial sites as well. Consistent treatment seems only fair. My inclination is to replace the removed link. That said, I'd also be inclined to remove the internal link to Top I Vision- Video Surveillance Aerostat System which does indeed look like wikispam. Regards, Blimpguy 11:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. The link was inserted by this editor, and it had all the hallmarks of spam to me. I looked through this and the other links I removed, and they appeared to link only to the company, and not to any relevant information which extended this encyclopaedia. I am sure some of these companies probably have some useful information somewhere on their websites, but the corporate external links should really belong in the articles about these companies rather than the more general articles about the services being offered by the companies - internal rather than external links. -- Linkspamremover 12:10, 25 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you mind taking a look at the "External links" section of LASIK and Eye tracking? I'm prepared to get rid of nearly all of the links, but I thought you might offer a good second opinion. -AED 06:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)edited 21:00, 27 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. I have been watching the recent edits at LASIK, since I removed some blatant spam from the article. I have no doubt it is a spam magnet, but from an initial glance I cannot currently see any links that I would think of as spam. The material linked to seems on topic, and not overly commercial (per WP:EL). Saying that, I am not sure how many of the links are necessary - so I will take another closer look in due course. I understand there is one particular link which has caused some discussion. I currently tend to view this as an editing issue, rather than a spam issue, but I am keeping an eye on it. Eye tracking on the other hand seems full of it - and well due for a prune. -- Linkspamremover 13:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Someone contacted me earlier regarding Eye tracking. I took out what appeared to be the commercial links. Cheers! -AED 04:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why have you removed the INTERNAL link from Acne vulgaris to History of acne? Like most subjects, acne has an interesting history. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Willow4 (talk • contribs) .

Hi. I am sure you are right, and in fact I am curious to know what you mean by the history of acne. In answer to your question - someone else removed the internal link. If you want to know why you should look at the article's history. I suggest you put the material into the main article. -- Linkspamremover 08:25, 1 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please visit the Certificate of Deposit page and provide some feedback on my "spammy links" addition to the discussion page. I believe you may be in my corner. Thank you!!!--Cdduncan 21:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi again! I'd like to ask you to place a vote on the names issue in this. There are several parallel names issues, but the date driven category deletion process begun May 1st is begging this ebook article page title (eBook vs ebook) be stabilized as well. (see (currently partial note-while I 'spam') User_talk:Fabartus#For_Closing_Admin:eBooks as that vote is apparently deadlocked.) I'd just like to get back to content! Thanks FrankB 17:29, 13 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate your comments on the current state of this article. There seems to be a tendency to include a huge list of websites. I believe this goes against WP:SPAM and WP:EL policies. Regards, Asterion ^{talk to me} 15:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

i made deep edits to the external links on this page leaving only what seems non-commercial and relevant to the goth fashion scene. 69.230.69.115 10:22, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a list of 10 external links--all to commercial sites--at the end of the Modular building article, along with an explanation on the talk page, and it was quickly reverted. I don't want to get into an edit war on that page, but I do need some clarification on the policy. My assumption is that it's OK to include a link to a company's official site if the article is about that company, but that it's not appropriate for an article on an area of business to end with a link farm of commercial sites. For example, the Vonage article can certainly include a link to the official site, but it's not OK to list Vonage and its umpteen competitors at the end of the VoIP article. Is that the policy? But if I'm being overzealous here, I'll just let it go. Thanks for your feedback. --Tom Allen 06:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Tom. I will give you my opinion here for now. I would say removing all 10 links was a little excessive. At the same time, I agree the links in the article are probably a bit excessive. I think the key thing is to ask what additional information the links provide to the readers. The article could do with some expansion to cover the shortcomings, but for now the links provide several things which are good - pictures, variety, news, and further information (such as technical information). The links do not seem to have been inserted for any webmaster's or supplier's benefit (I haven't looked too closely), so they appear to meet the crucial test of objectivity and NPOV. I said the links are probably a bit excessive - I think there are some that don't really offer any additional information, and are basically just sales/advertising sites. Commercial links are not prohibited per se - the test is how good the information they provide is. It's tricky to get the right balance - having taken a quick look I would probably remove four of them. For a response based on Wikipedia guidelines, you could do worse than to look at this which I think covers the precise wording and spirit of the guidelines quite accurately. It's all about the linking criteria, and the state of development of the article. Hope this helps. Linkspamremover 22:00, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

you should never remove links that are related to the content of the page as you have done with me. Whats the point in having a external links section if you just remove links that are releated to the content. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 89.241.216.13 (talk • contribs) .

You should read the spam guidelines and the external link guidelines. You should never spam Wikipedia. -- Linkspamremover 12:59, 27 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You removed links to value added whitepapers that specifically addressed the Wiki word or subject. As the previous user notes, whats the point in having a external links section if you just remove links that are releated to the content.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetManage (talk • contribs) .

As I noted to the previous user, you should read the guidelines. For your article, read WP:AUTO and WP:VAIN. WP:NPOV and WP:V are also an official policies. You have a conflict of interest and are not in a position to write about your company. -- Linkspamremover 23:13, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If a reader is interested in additonal [external] materials, how are my whitepapers not relevant? These papers were developed by industry leading reaseach firms and industry experts. I am simply trying to provide additional insights into the real world use cases supporting the respective terms. I have read your terms and would posit that I comply.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetManage (talk • contribs) .

If your articles are really great then you should add the link to the talk page and ask others to take a look and add them to the article if appropriate. I point you to no.3 (and possibly no.4), and on the same page this. -- Linkspamremover 23:45, 28 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then these postings, linked under the term Composite Applications would fall under the same "ruling", correct?

• SAP(r) xApps - [[SAP AG] SAP] has shipped composite applications called "SAP xApps" since 2002.

• Composite Software - Composite Software is a "best of breed" vendor specializing in composite applications.

• Webify Solutions - Service-Oriented Business Applications (SOBA)

• On Estimating the Security Risks of Composite Software Services Research paper - in PFD format.

• Corizon - Composite Application Platform.

And yet, they have remained on the page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetManage (talk • contribs) .

Wikipedia is a work in progress and in addition to longer-term strategies we deal with things as they appear. Like you did. The examples you mention do not all appear in the Composite application article; at first sight at least one of the items does not seem to belong, but it is difficult to tell without looking further. Which I will. The PDF research paper is freely available and does not require registration. Please see the links I provided. Your position remains unchanged. -- Linkspamremover 00:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The research papers I posted did not require registration either - the URLs were direct links to the research reports. Since you are "looking further" can you tell me how the IBM, SUN, and other enerprise links associated with the term SOA [service oriented architecture] do not fall under the same "ruling" you have given us. Can you clarify what you mean by, "Your position remains unchanged"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetManage (talk • contribs) .

Examples 1 2:

Once you are registered, you may download any white papers or articles from our technical library anytime.

blah blah

Your NetManage Team

We respect your email privacy: We will not spam, sell or rent your email to anyone at anytime for any reason.

There are required fields left blank. Please select the "Back" button in your browser and complete the form before resubmitting.

Fields marked with an asterisk (*) are required.

"Your position remains unchanged" - you are in a conflict of interest linking to your own site. Use the talk page - see previous links. I can almost guarantee you without looking that IBM did not link to their own site. -- Linkspamremover 15:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Our links were incorrect - they should have retuned the paper, not the registration form. Can I re-post the papers with the appropriate URLs?

You should review those IBM links - they do go to the coprp. sites.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by NetManage (talk • contribs) .

I have tried again, but cannot get past the registration page. It seems to be the site policy to prevent direct links by demanding registration. By all means add the correct URL to the talk page of the articles, if there is one, or if they are that good post them here and I will add them myself. My point about the IBM links is that the links will have been added by independent Wikipedia editors, and not by people being paid by IBM. -- Linkspamremover 18:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

... you may be interested in this spam removal technique, and {{SpamD}}. Best regards (Long time no see!) // FrankB 11:28, 28 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hi,
You appear to be eligible to vote in the current Arbitration Committee election. The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to enact binding solutions for disputes between editors, primarily related to serious behavioural issues that the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the ability to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail. If you wish to participate, you are welcome to review the candidates' statements and submit your choices on the voting page. For the Election committee, MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]