Requestion

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

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

Jon, while we do have differing views on things it is important to know that I do respect your opinion. Thank you for awarding me this high honor. I hope this Spamstar works in warding off all the angry spammers that come here seeking a pound of my flesh. (Requestion 20:57, 2 March 2007 (UTC))Reply

Wikipedia is a better quality project because of hardworking and conscientious editors like both of you! We all tend to have some diversity of opinion (which is good), however the common thread is keeping articles clear of spam and other nonsense. A thankless task for the most part, but invaluable to the project. congrats!--Hu12 20:28, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

• Special:Linksearch/*.publicintegrity.org

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

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

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

I'm sorry I offended you with my template. However, you have now falsely accused me of adding inappropriate external links to wikipedia. On what basis do you make this accusation? Quadpus 00:33, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have reverted this [2] spam edit three times now. I don't care about the text but that link is likely to be blacklisted. It is too early to say for sure because I'm still connecting all the dots. So far the publicintegrity.org picture I see is a whole lot of WP:SPAM, WP:SOAPBOX'ing, and a lack of WP:NPOV. This just doesn't belong on Wikipedia. (Requestion 02:30, 10 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Should I care what you see you "connect the dots" on publicintegrity.org? The text and citation I re-added were entirely appropriate and calling me a spammer is out of line. Answer this: If some intern at the NY Times went around adding citations to articles, would you take it on yourself to remove every citation of the NY Times? Quadpus 20:51, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Calling me a vandal was out of line. You have no idea how much trouble you caused by adding that {{uw-delete2}} tag above. Take a look at my talk page. I deal with a lot of angry spammers and you stirred up a hornets nest. You should care what I see when I "connect the dots" because it could result in publicintegrity.org being blacklisted which would make this whole conversation moot. To answer your question; if a NY Times intern ran amok and added 100 NY Times references to Wikipedia articles then I would delete them. You might not like this particular solution but it is the suggested procedure.

Your removal [3] of a warning I placed on User_talk:Aquemini almost qualifies as borderline vandalism. Like I said at User_talk:Quadpus#publicintegrity.org_spam; Normally I Wikipedia:Don't template the regulars but if you continue behaving this way I'm going to make an exception. (Requestion 21:22, 10 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

When you gave a spam3 warning to Aquemini, someone who has not made any contributions since their first warning, and who had agreed after that warning not to add any more inappropriate links. I assumed you didn't notice all this, and made the warning in good faith, but perhaps I was wrong. Removing spam is a noble goal, but in my opinion, you are stepping over the line. Quadpus 21:53, 10 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Many spam fighters would of started User:Aquemini off with a spam4 warning due to the shear volume of spamming so in that sense I could be considered generous. It is also important to remember that the spam and vandalism warnings are transferable across IP addresses, sock accounts, companies, and organizations depending on the circumstances. Now I have a question for you; how did you know about the warning I gave Aquemini and why did you even care enough to revert it? Aquemini was a one-day WP:SPA and it doesn't look like your paths ever crossed. (Requestion 22:36, 10 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Turn on your email please. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.10.180.141 (talk • contribs)

Sorry but I'm not going to do that. If you have something that you want to say then please say it here. (Requestion 21:10, 18 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

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

WP:SPAM#Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another. (Requestion 14:28, 18 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Yet, why wouldn't you just also remove other links of the exact nature right above? Sorry, I am just trying to understand what the difference is... I can deal with rules, but the selective enforcement of them is annoying. And, why is this spam exactly? Your saying its cool for McAfee to link to free software that is designed for their commercial service, but uncool to link to a similar service that is for free? Wlanmac 14:48, 18 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I simply don't have time to remove every single piece of spam in every article I edit. You spammed multiple articles with your website. All I did was selectively clean this up. You shouldn't be adding links to your own website in the first place as that is a conflict of interest (WP:COI). I have no opinion about that McAfee external link. If you think it is spam then you should delete it. (Requestion 15:21, 18 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Wikipedia is edited and censored to conform to the likes of select few individuals who have nothing better to do than sit and play internet cops, judges, and juries. No sense arguing with them...they won't give you any logical explanations for their actions. They don't have any to give. They manipulate the rules to fit their agendas and like the power rush it gives them to hit the revert button. Regardless of the contributions you make, they won't stick. It's not worth wasting your time over. The "editors" get little "badges" and pats on the back when they make a massive amount of edits. This just further encourages them to remove even valid contributions without any consideration. To illustrate, I added two different book references....BOOK REFERENCES...***linking them to Wikibooks*** and they were removed. One removal was done by Requestion. Both were directly related to the articles they were placed in and both considered to be respectable books by those with any knowledge of the subjects. There was no good reason to remove them...and the one that Requestion personally removed was later added back by another "power editor" who stated, "Put back the book. It's cited all over the place." Wikipedia started out as a good idea...but went terribly wrong when people like Requestion and a few others got involved. Now it's just disturbing and sad. Darladeer 10:54, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeerReply

This has nothing to do with censorship. Wikipedia has rules. I suggest reading WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. Why can't you people understand that it's a conflict of interest to add external links to your own website? That's one reason why WP:EL says to avoid "links mainly intended to promote a website." The purpose of Wikipedia is not to be a web directory advertisement service. Also, the addition of external links is not considered contribution. You know, it really pains me to see people suffer like this. Learn the rules, follow the rules, live a happier life. (Requestion 17:06, 20 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Wikibook links are external???? Not to mention, the one you removed was cited in the reference section of that very article. You're incredibly sloppy in your edits. It's your impulsive and compulsive editing that devalues Wikipedia. Then, when someone questions you, your answer is to try to enlist the help from other editors to force them out of Wikipedia -- "Hello Arcadian. This user is giving me problems too. Any help in guiding User:Darladeer down the path of WP:GRIEF would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (Requestion 17:13, 20 May 2007 (UTC))" -- User_talk:Arcadian#Revert -- How in the world was I giving Arcadian "problems"? Because I asked for the reasoning behind removing a book reference that links to Wikibooks???? It's obvious that you don't have the best interest of Wikipedia at heart. Darladeer 21:33, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeerReply

What's a "wikibook?" Where is that "Julia Lawless" book cited in the references section? I don't see it. About Arcadian; look at all the grief you're causing me about that book, I was trying to be supportive. (Requestion 22:04, 20 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Do you think there are two people named Julia Lawless in the aromatherapy/essential oil field? What are the odds? Even if you think there might be, how long does it take to confirm? Same goes for where the book linked to...follow the link you removed for the book...see where it leads you. I would suggest that if you don't have time to do it right (or won't take the time), don't do it. Again, it's your sloppiness (and arrogance) that bothers me.

As for your "supportive" comment...my entire comment to Arcadian was "Kindly explain why you made the revert on the additions I made to the tea tree oil page. Darladeer 09:43, 20 May 2007 (UTC)darladeer" as he did not make any note of why he reverted the book addition (it is a book specifically on tea tree oil and, again, the link was ***internal***). I asked the question in a respectable manner. Not sure why you felt he needed support? How odd (and, again, disturbing).Darladeer 04:36, 21 May 2007 (UTC)darladeerReply

I still don't see that "Julia Lawless" book cited in the references section of the List of essential oils article. I do see ref #17 but that is a Lavendar oil book with a different ISBN. That amazon.com link really should be deleted or changed to an ISBN, but that's a different issue. So much spam to clean up, so little time. (Requestion 15:38, 21 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

I've blocked this guy (sue me). I also considered removing this 'statement'. But I almost think you're starting to enjoy this whole thing. :) Femto 16:50, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sue you? Is that a legal threat? Are you threatening me? I demand to see some badges. What no badges? How can you expect anyone to respect your authority if you don't have any stinking badges? I'm going to report you! (Requestion 16:59, 22 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

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

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

Public workforall.net registration record:

owner-contact: P-MJG120

owner-organization: P. Vreymans

owner-fname: MFPH

owner-lname: Geurts

owner-city: Wingene

owner-zip: 8750

owner-country: BE

Public workforall.org registration record:

Registrant Name:Eric Verhulst

Registrant Organization:Lancelot research nv

Registrant City:Leuven

Registrant Postal Code:be-b3010

Registrant Country:BE

--A. B. ^(talk) 17:18, 22 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

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

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

1. Shall I restore the whole discussion or shall we restart the debate from zero?

2. I saw some of your conspirors also systhematically erase comments on the Administrators'noticeboard.

Dou you think the amdinistrators would appreciate that if they found out?

Advocate For Free Speech nr 006 on behalf of WWFA staff and BullY-Buster. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.242.52.29 (talk • contribs)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello User:193.209.12.111, User:Steven Kelly, or whoever you are. Why have you been spamming metacase.com and dsmforum.org external links to multiple Wikipedia articles? I see that Steven Kelly is the CTO of MetaCase and co-founder of the DSM Forum. This isn't about commercial vs. non-commercial links or my opinion of MetaEdit+. This is about self-promotion, sorry but that's a WP:COI and WP:SPAM. (Requestion 20:10, 23 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Hi, yes that was me, just forgot to sign. Like I said, I did not add the links, so how on earth can that be WP:COI? The links were there in the first version, which neither I nor anyone else associated with the organizations wrote. I'll certainly reinstate links when you remove them, just like I will happily reinstate links to tools I am not associated with. The key issue is value to readers. Steven Kelly 19:56, 26 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please see WP:SPAM. I'm impressed at how quick you reverted me, it took you only 10 hours but your previous Wikipedia edit was more than 5 months before. You must be keeping a close eye on your links? I also noticed that you created the MetaEdit+ article so I am putting a {{coi>> tag on it. (Requestion 21:44, 26 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

I've told you twice I didn't add those links, nor do I know who did. If the person lives in Finland, do you really think you should be jumping to conclusions that it's me? That's a 1 in 5 million chance... and you're wrong. Please remove the above insinuation against the good name of that user. You're accusing them of spamming, when they added a link to a company they have no connection with.

As to my editing behavior: no, I don't keep close tabs on the DSM page. I drop by every now and then to check the history, but basically the page has been pretty stable for a while, and seems to give a well-rounded view of the topic.

And what's this about spamming multiple entries?! All I did was change a couple of existing mentions of MetaEdit+ on other pages to be links to the MetaEdit+ page, since I understand wikifying to be good behavior. Without those Wiki links, people would just use Google to come straight to our company pages, so those changes were hardly what a spammer would do :).

As for the MetaEdit+ page itself, sure, I created it. There's no fatal conflict of interest issue in that per se, only if it offends NPOV. If the topic is not sufficiently noteworthy, that's a separate issue, not COI. As COI puts it: "Conflict of interest is not in itself a reason to delete an article, but lack of notability is. ... Who has written the material should be irrelevant so long as these policies are closely adhered to". So, please remove the tag, and instead comment on the talk page if you feel parts of the content slip from a NPOV. Steven Kelly 22:23, 28 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I wonder who added these [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] external links? I don't think the SPA you refer to cares about any insinuations against their good name. What you call "wikifying" we call nuturing, cultivating, and funneling of external links. About the COI tag, its purpose is to warn potential editors of a possible conflict of interest. The COI tag stays for the time being until we figure out what's going to happen to that page. (Requestion 00:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Please slow down and look more carefully at the evidence. For the DSM page, you're simply wrong. The original poster of the links, 212.149.217.232, is unknown to me and unrelated to the target of those links, so they cannot possibly be spam. Please remove the insinuation above that he/she is spamming. They did not post any of the external links 4-9 above.

I see from 4 of the 6 external links you list that someone from behind our company firewall (IP 193.209.12.111) has added external links to other pages than DSM on 15-22.5.07. As soon as I saw your original revert to DSM I emailed people in the company to tell them not to add links, and that I would handle this. Only now do I see from the above external links that that employee had also added links elsewhere. The person in question is new to our company and Wikipedia, and presumed from the presence of other vanity links on those pages that they were acceptable. He now knows better, and my thanks for bringing this to our attention. Since this was a newbie, the topics were clearly related to our company and/or the DSM Forum, and there were only a few, I think we can agree on AGF here.

My comments about "wikifying" related purely to the MetaEdit+ page. Since MetaEdit+ was mentioned by independent sources without a link on several pages, I added a short NPOV MetaEdit+ page, and wikified those references to it. Making the references links is clearly wikifying, and completely different from adding new external links (or changing uses of the word MetaEdit+ into external links, which I would perceive as being a poorer solution). The MetaEdit+ page itself stands or falls on its own merits.

So, there are several issues here, and three posters (212.149.217.232, Steven Kelly, 193.209.12.111). I suggest as a solution: 1) the links by 212.149.217.232 to MetaCase and the DSM Forum are added back to the DSM page, since they are relevant, clearly called for by a NPOV and notability (check Google), and were added by someone unrelated to the organizations. 2) The external links added to other pages recently by 193.209.12.111 remain removed, but the SPAM tag on my user page is removed - I didn't add them. 3) The MetaEdit+ page goes through the normal process to confirm notability and NPOV. If it passes, we look for a less aggressive method of indicating its origins than a COI tag. Steven Kelly 08:11, 29 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

The 212.149.217.232 IP is a low edit SPA and I'm sure they don't mind any insinuations. So for all practical purposes the 3 accounts are grouped together and treated as a single entity. Yes, I agree that adding internal links is very different than external links. Internal links are good and external links are bad in this particular case. The only reason I mentioned it is because funneling and cultivating show that something interesting might be going on, that's all. Also, that isn't a spam tag on your page, it's a courtesy message and it's very informative. This situation a perfect example why WP:COI advises against adding links and creating pages to your own websites. (Requestion 22:22, 29 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

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

Hello Gortu. Wikipedia is not a mere collection of external links (see WP:NOT#LINK) and that page has a huge number of them. Converting those external links into internal links would be a good solution. Deleting the those external links and moving them to the talk page or even commenting them out with HTML would also be good solution. (Requestion 19:53, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Hi there. Would you agree that I generate stub articles for each emulator? In the meantime, I'll comment out the links. --Gortu 08:52, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, commenting out the external links is a great idea. Stubs are a good solution but do careful with the WP:NOTABILITY guideline. I personally like stub articles as long as they are not spammy and promotional. (Requestion 21:01, 25 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

• Special:Linksearch/*.careercornerstone.org

• Special:Contributions/Careercornerstone - 21 linkspams

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

It's OK, don't feel foolish, you did the right thing. Yes I read the discussion User talk:Careercornerstone and I even left a comment. There are a couple problems with that careercornerstone.org link but the biggest problem is the conflict of interest as they are promoting themselves. So it appears to be a violation of WP:EL, WP:NOT#LINK, WP:COI, and WP:SPAM. I found it interesting watching the edit ripple this caused. Quite a few editors jumped in to delete that link. (Requestion 21:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Yeah, I've found similar occurances to be entertaining reading in the past, and sometimes read WP:ANI for it's sheer entertainment value; but it's not quite as fun when you're involved. I still feel bad. After interacting with that user a little, I can't help but feel that even if removal was appropriate, we (and by "we" I mean "me" most of all, but everyone else that left fairly harsh edit summaries) didn't AGF, and were pretty rude to an incorrect but good faith new editor. I doubt they'll be back. At the very least, I think I'll try to be more specific than a flippant "see WP:EL" in my edit summary in the future, and indeed, I think I'll swear off EL reverting completely. --barneca (talk) 21:49, 25 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

This sort of blanket spamming happens more often than you would think. Your detailed edit summary was a good idea and it probably prevented some hasty editor from slapping some {{spam}} warnings on your talk page! I agree WP:SPAM sort of contradicts WP:AGF but it is important to remember that "this guideline does not require that editors continue to assume good faith in the presence of evidence to the contrary." The most polite thing to do when deleting spam is to use the "undo" button without any comment but that creates the problem of not being descriptive. I create custom edit summaries which are a lot of work but they have the advantage of trackability and accountability. Check out WT:WPSPAM if you're interested in fighting spam, you might even want to join. (Requestion 22:34, 25 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

Do you realize that in this edit you removed the only non-broken link from the list that was non-commercial? WP:COI is only a guideline, not a policy. The guideline doesn't say "don't", but "avoid, or exercise great caution" and "we very strongly encourage you". It does not provide a licence to revert edits covered by that guideline. The clause that seems most pertinent is the disapproval of "Links that appear to promote products by pointing to obscure or not particularly relevant commercial sites (commercial links)." In my judgement this clause does not apply to the link in question. I am not affiliated with the Sloan Career Cornerstone Center, nor do I know anyone affiliated with that organization, and so, when I re-added the link, based on my judgement of its relevance and appropriateness, there was no issue of any conflict of interest, and even if the guideline of WP:COI had suggested that such edits should be reverted (which it does not), even then it would not have applied to my edit that you reverted.  --Lambiam^Talk 00:09, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

Are you saying that all of the other links in the Career management article are broken? About the careercornerstone.org link, it was spam and spam gets deleted. (Requestion 00:52, 27 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

One link was broken, the others seemed, on cursory examination, to be commercial.

You are not going to be very flexible about this, are you? I resent your implication that I am adding spam links to Wikipedia. I think you are misinterpreting the relevant guidelines, or applying them too strictly. The website in question is informative and offers relevant material to readers interested in the topic that we cannot incorporate into the article.  --Lambiam^Talk 11:18, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't say you were adding spam links, I said User:Careercornerstone was. And yes I am very unflexible about this. When I clean up a mass spamming I expect it to stay cleaned up. (Requestion 15:47, 27 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

You are inflexible in your private and particular interpretation of the rules. There is no rule that says that external links, even if fully appropriate, must be removed in case of a possible conflict of interest. There is even less of a rule that if a previously removed external link is re-instated by several editors in good standing, who have no such conflict of interest and who add the external link based on their considered judgement of its merits, it shall, must and will nevertheless remain removed, if necessary by indefinite reverts, to which task you have been called. Or did I miss something? In that case, please edify me.  --Lambiam^Talk 16:14, 27 May 2007 (UTC)Reply

You missed something. Let me ask, why do you care if that particular careercornerstone.org external link is included? (Requestion 18:07, 27 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

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

Well, I don't think it's a valuable addition to the article. In fact the careercornerstone.org domain is very likely to be blacklisted if it persists at being a problem. (Requestion 19:10, 27 May 2007 (UTC))Reply

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

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

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

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

• Special:Linksearch/*.wikipractice.org
• Special:Contributions/85.1.100.243 - 1 linkspam
• Special:Contributions/85.2.55.232 - 1 linkspam
• Special:Contributions/85.2.49.207 - 0 linkspams
• Special:Contributions/85.1.106.56 - 0 linkspams, blanked this spam report
• Special:Contributions/85.2.105.124 - 0 linkspams, blanked this spam report
• Special:Contributions/85.2.58.119 - 0 linkspams, blanked this spam report

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The above warning message is from this standard template:

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

found on this template compilation page:

• Wikipedia:Template messages/User talk namespace

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hello,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

As you requested : )

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

hi man,

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

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

Thanks and waiting for your response

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

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

For context see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#Wikisummaries?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I don't know what I was thinking [10], Quiddity isn't an admin. This comment though proves my suspicion about User:Quiddity following me around tossing wrenches into the machinery. Hmmm. (Requestion 18:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Probably a good name for the workforall.net guy given his recent history of daily warnings. Just call us the 4077th. --A. B. ^(talk) 23:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes I agree, a serious reaction is in order. I suggest that we autoblock Belgium! (Requestion 00:17, 20 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Please explain why you consider the link you recently removed (to the page on the use of medical imaging in investigating musical instruments) to be "spam". I looked at the page, and it appears to be totally relevant and permissible. There's no advertising whatsoever on it. So what if the editor put it on more than one page? (I removed it from one, the violin article, where it wasn't appropriate.) I think this is a misuse, or at least a misunderstanding, of what the term "spam" really means. +ILike2BeAnonymous 23:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for reverting the WP:SPAM I deleted. The author also created an article today that has since been CSD'd. There is a WP:COI here. Instead of causing me problems why don't you take this up with WT:WPSPAM? (Requestion 23:13, 20 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

For context see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Jun#eserver.org and WP:COIN#EServer.org.

"Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews)." - Wikipedia external link policy

The eserver links you're removing from Thoreau-related articles are of just this sort. I am not affiliated with eserver at all, and so have no conflict of interest here. I have nothing to gain from driving traffic to eserver and to my knowledge I have no relationship with anyone affiliated with eserver. The links you are removing contain useful, accurate, on-topic research of the exact sort that the wikipedia external links guideline envisions. For this reason, I revert your overzealous deletions. -Moorlock 03:59, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Take this up with WPSPAM and COIN if you have a problem with this. (Requestion 04:06, 21 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

I second Moorlock's concern, and your non-response here is really not satisfying. While many of the eserver.org links you've removed do seem irrelevant and potentially like linkspam, some are clearly good references for the articles they're attached to (sometimes to texts that are otherwise unavailable on the Web). Please try to be a little more discriminating and don't remove useful references. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:19, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not removing references and I am being discriminating. Only links by mass eserver.org spammers are being removed. If you have a problem with this take it up with WPSPAM and COIN. There have been lengthy discussions, sorry that you didn't participate. (Requestion 04:25, 21 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Please provide a link to these "lengthy discussions" and show me where a consensus supporting mass deletion of all eserver.org links was reached. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

(edit conflict, sorry) Since I now see that you've responded at User talk:Moorlock, perhaps a little more detail would be helpful. First: why do you think these links are spam? Second: why do you think they are not useful references? I don't really understand your reasoning here. It seems very clear that a link like this one, to the text of Charles Beecher's sermon against the Fugitive Slave Act, is a helpful reference for the article on Beecher. Do you disagree? -- Rbellin|Talk 04:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is not a reference. That is an eserver.org external link that has been spammed hundreds of times. I have not deleted any references. (Requestion 04:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

I don't understand your response, and you don't seem to be addressing my concern or Moorlock's in any but the most perfunctory way. If by "not a reference" you mean it's not in the References section of the article, that's true, but that is not what I meant. It is certainly a useful thing for a reader to refer to in order to learn more about Beecher, and that is what "reference" means in ordinary language. Isn't the link useful? Why are you deleting links that provide useful information? Please give a reasonable justification for deleting them. -- Rbellin|Talk 04:44, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Wikipedia is not a mere directory of links. The Internet has billions of useful links. Do you think Wikipedia should have links to all of them? Someone spams hundreds of links, they get deleted, those are the WP:SPAM rules. There are plenty of other useful links to choose from. (Requestion 04:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

This seems like a patently insufficient justification for these deletions. We're not talking about yet another Pokemon fansite here, we're talking about links to online text of potentially scarce and obscure nineteenth-century texts (and academic work by respected scholars) directly relevant to the article topic. It seems indisputable that texts like these (e.g. Beecher's sermon) help to inform and educate readers of Wikipedia's articles, and that they function as worthwhile references whether they're called "external links" or not, and whether they're added to articles by people who've spammed links elsewhere or not. I've worked hard to make Wikipedia's articles on topics like nineteenth-century America better, and I don't understand how some of these deletions do anything but make them worse. Again, can you explain why all these links are worthy of deletion because someone added a lot of them at once? (I grant happily that some of the links you deleted were irrelevant and hence spam.) I am not the first well-informed and disinterested editor to tell you that some of these deleted links were useful. -- Rbellin|Talk 05:07, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I've worked hard to keep Wikipedia clean from spam. Your last sentence was rude. (Requestion 05:39, 21 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

I don't see anything rude about it, but just to be clear, I do not mean to question your good intentions at all, nor the virtue of spam removal. Are you planning on addressing my concerns about these deletions? -- Rbellin|Talk 06:00, 21 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was a lot of delicate work removing all this eserver.org spam by hand. Next time I'm going to build a bot that will do the maintenance deletion automatically and avoid the grief. (Requestion 15:33, 25 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

From the Wikipedia:External_links policy:

Wikipedia articles can include links to Web pages outside Wikipedia. Such pages could contain further research that is accurate and on-topic; information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks); or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to their reliability (such as reviews and interviews).

Some external links are welcome [such as]....

• Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.
• Sites with other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article, such as reviews and interviews.
• ...
• For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.

The links you have been removing fit this category and do not fit the "Links normally to be avoided" category at all. For instance, you have been removing from the Slavery in Massachusetts page a link to [http:// thoreau.eserver.org/edsav1.html Editorial Savoir Faire: Thoreau Transforms His Journal into “Slavery in Massachusetts”], a scholarly article describing in detail how Henry David Thoreau transformed the content of his journal into the essay that is the topic of the Wikipedia page in question. This cannot be justified under any of the guidelines on the Wikipedia External Links policy page. Please stop overzealously removing useful external links that fit Wikipedia's policy. -Moorlock 00:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Requestion, your use of a spam warning template and what looks like a veiled threat of blocking on User talk:Moorlock were completely inappropriate. Please remember to assume good faith of other editors even when you disagree with their views.

And I don't see that you've yet addressed my concerns about your deletion of links in any of your responses here. Can you explain why you are so unshakably certain these links are spam rather than useful references, certain enough to revert-war over it, despite two users' detailed and reasonable disagreement? They seem very clearly to fall under the passage on useful sources from WP:EL that Moorlock quoted in the first comment above. -- Rbellin|Talk 03:02, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

There is nothing "veiled" about the spam warnings. If you keep blanket reverting my spam deletions then you'll get blocked. It really is that simple. (Requestion 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

No one has "blanket reverted" anything. In the case of the few links that I reverted your deletion of, I read both the individual articles and the linked pages, and considered carefully whether the goal of a useful and informative encyclopedia article was helped by the link, before I did anything. And judging only from the thoughtfulness of Moorlock's comments, it seems likely that quite a bit of consideration was given there as well. You still haven't replied substantively to any of the concerns that either of us have raised, and the continued threats of blocking are completely out of line. Again, I'd like to remind you of WP:AGF and request a more reasoned response. -- Rbellin|Talk 19:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Both you and Moorlock are blanket reverting my spam deletions and I have the diffs to prove it. Can you please stop? (Requestion 19:24, 26 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Moorlock, you don't need to quote WP:EL rules to me. I am quite active over at WT:EL and I help write and interpret the WP:EL guideline. I also don't appreciate being called [11] a vandal. (Requestion 17:21, 26 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

I am cross-posting this response from my talk page. Given the discussion that I have read here, I should add that I do not represent the EServer. I will forward mention of this discussion to a Wikipedia user who does represent the EServer, located at Iowa State University. I can and do represent the Antislavery Literature Project, located at Arizona State University.--Jlockard 18:16, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Do you mean Geoffrey Sauer? Geoffrey has already agreed to stop spamming Wikipedia with eserver.org links. So you represent the Antislavery Literature Project, do you understand why adding external links is a conflict of interest (WP:COI)? (Requestion 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Dear User:Requestion -- This question of whether and under what circumstances external links constitute link-spamming was discussed at some length a year ago, with another admin. The linked source is a well-recognized scholarly and educational resource, located at two major universities. We link to Wikipedia as public scholarship that seeks to make available high-quality educational and research resources via the Internet. We link only to articles relating to the literature of slavery, and contribute to those articles where appropriate. We have no commercial purposes and no interest other than in providing public scholarship. It is rather discouraging to explain this annually, let alone contemplate restoring now-missing links. There really are better things to do with a work-day. As User:Moorlock points out, you have misconstrued Wikipedia policy, and in a manner that defeats educational purposes. Indeed, you have misconstrued it in a manner that would lead to elimination of all legitimate standard reference source links. Thanks for not doing this again.--Jlockard 15:48, 28 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I fight a lot of spam on Wikipedia. True, commercial link spam is a big problem but what I find very discouraging is the amount of academic link spam I see. Even well intentioned spam is still WP:SPAM and usually a WP:COI is involved. I don't appreciate your "misconstrued Wikipedia policy" comment either. You probably aren't aware of this but I actively help, steer, and interpret several external link related Wikipedia policies and guidelines. (Requestion 23:22, 29 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

I would strongly urge all participants here not to edit war over this issue. Requestion, if any given link is considered to be useful by editors working on that page, then it should stay. Others, if these links have been added in massive numbers, then removing them is proper procedure. The should be added back in, if they are truly useful, one at a time, and with a specific note on the value of each one in the edit summary. But do not revert each other over this; that's the wrong way to proceed. Chick Bowen 06:18, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

I want to second what Chick Bowen said here. Calling other editors "vandals", reverting with "rvv" summaries, threatening blocks for reverting, spam warnings, and edit warring are unnecessary and unhelpful actions in this situation. You all need to cool it.--Isotope23 19:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hello Chick Bowen and Isotope23. I just figured out why this big party is on my talk page. Shouldn't I of been informed about Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive264#Overzealous_.22linkspam.22_deletion? (Requestion 19:54, 26 June 2007 (UTC))Reply

Some external links are welcome (see "What should be linked", below), but it is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of external links related to each topic. No page should be linked from a Wikipedia article unless its inclusion is justified.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.70.86.72 (talk • contribs)

The preceding unsigned comment was left on your user page rather than your talk page. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} 21:58, 3 October 2007 (UTC)Reply

You have previously warned this user for spamming external links to callingcare.com across Wikipedia. I thought you should be aware that this same user created an article at Care (Call Reassurance) which is about the company for which they had earlier been spamming links. They have also uploaded image and released it into the public domain, though they likely are not the copyright holders for that image. You might want to let the folks over at WP:ANI know about it. Thanks. Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

• I've taken the liberty of notifying them. Cheers, Cumulus Clouds (talk) 07:41, 17 December 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hi, Requestion, I'm GeForce3. I'm a fairly new Wikipedia editor, and I don't know much about Wikipedia. Remember your warning on 192.25.142.225's talk page? Well, I was wondering, if you were editing an article about a company that sells products (like Reebok), is it considered wrong to add a link to the site of the company? I haven't actually done that, but I was wondering. Please tell me on my talk page --GeForce3 (talk) 06:31, 17 April 2009 (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) 13:53, 23 November 2015 (UTC)Reply