User talk:A. B./May 2009

This page is a chronological archive of past discussions from User talk:A. B. for the month of May 2009. Exchanges spilling over from late April or into early June may have been retained elsewhere to avoid breaking their continuity.

In order to preserve the record of past discussions, the contents of this page should be preserved in their current form.

Please do NOT make new edits to this page. If you wish to make new comments or re-open an old discussion thread, please do so on the User talk:A. B. page.

If necessary, copy the relevant discussion thread to the user talk:A. B. page and then add your comments there.

Request for review

Hi. Please be aware that I was not the one who posted the chowhoud reference on cook's illustrated. My contribution was for the footnotes: http://www.jsonline.com/features/food/42598082.html http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2OWVXAVSBWSRI. I had (-558) taken off. Could you please recitify. I work in research market intelligence. I would not have added the chowhound comment. (Wuthering123 (talk) 21:47, 7 May 2009 (UTC)) Wuthering123.[reply]

Thermal bag — is it spam?

At first, another editor and I thought we'd discovered an edit war among a number of editors (see the discussion). Two versions of the article are continuously reverted. However, it seems the true purpose of the article is to advertise the external links in the "online stores" and "distributor/manufacturer" sections of the article. What should be done to stop the reverts or remove the external "online store" links? This is the first time I've seen multiple editors continuously revert an entire article. Your advice, please. Thank you. Mtd2006 (talk) 08:25, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some stuff to User:XLinkBot. I think we should consider indeffing some of the accounts, this is totally inappropriate. I will keep an eye on the situation. Thanks for catching this. (I hope you don't mind A. B. to jump into the discussion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

Thanks for making me aware of this, Mtd2006, and thanks for jumping in, Dirk.
This looks bad enough to blacklist -- I see no reason not to. Blacklisting's more final than XLinkBot.
I suggest not indefinitely blocking these accounts -- they might try to resurrect sockpuppets and it's easier to keep an eye on them if we have they're using accounts already on our watchlists (for that reason, I seldom block spammers).

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:35, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, I just block them. If they are persistent enough to start socking (which some indeed do), then blacklisting is just the more reasonable. Once theythe first spammers have been identified, socks often are quite evident. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:39, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you both. XLinkBot pulled two new socks from the drawer, but it also stopped the reverts. Unless the article changes, it's a candidate for deletion; time will tell. Mtd2006 (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nah, it's not only XLinkBot, abusefilters can do wonders here ;-) --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklist question

Just wondering about what happens when someone tries to add blacklisted sites to an article. Is the edit rejected with a notice that it can't be saved because of the site (I think this happened to me once) or does a bot automatically come and remove it? I also asked a question (unrelated to this) on the blacklist talk page, if you're in an answering kind of mood. Thanks! Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 00:49, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Try saving this link and you'll see the message you get:

http: //tinyurl.com

I've disabled it by putting a space between http: and //tinyurl.com

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I see! I'd tried doing that before, but I would only hit the preview button, which doesn't bring up the notice. Mbinebri ^{talk ←} 14:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Barnstar

		The Special Barnstar
		You're a really good general contributer to Wikipedia! Keep up the good work! Advanceforward (talk) 12:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks -- this makes my day! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:38, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Advice please

For the article about SmartPPC_EVO you set "This article is written like an advertisement". Please, advice what exactly paragraphs require to be removed or modified to make the article more encyclopaedic than advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dariakovalchuk (talk • contribs) 11:03, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's not so much that it's bad -- it just has that "press release" ring to it. It probably needs just a little tweaking and I think there are better writers than me to fix it. It really is a good article for a first version by a brand-new editor. I hope you'll contribute to more articles!

I'm much more concerned about the notability issue. If you can't meet that guideline, we'll have to delete it for now until it gets some independent media coverage. If it is deleted, I can move it out of "article space" (the main encyclopaedia) to a special user subpage for "storage" until you get coverage -- let me know if you want me to do this. Even if it's deleted, as an administrator I can access the deleted version.

If the product is not notable but the company is, we can change the article to one about the company and then mention the product. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:00, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see this standard: Conflict of Interest Guideline. If you're associated with this company, you shouldn't be editing the actual article any further, but you can make suggestions on the article's talk page as well as editing it if it's in your "user space" as a subpage.

Note also that you can use your user pages and user talk pages as workspaces to work on drafts, etc. but they're not for overt promotional purposes. Our User Page Guideline talks more about this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:05, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

First of all how can i access the deleted article? Could you help me with this? Dariakovalchuk (talk) 07:10, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

On the talk page of one of these administrators, post a link to the deleted page, and ask that they userfy (recover) the page. They will probably then post a link to a temporary page; copy the content from that page to your computer. Johnuniq (talk) 08:45, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Request for review

Hi. Please be aware that I was not the one who posted the chowhoud reference on cook's illustrated. My contribution was for the footnotes: http://www.jsonline.com/features/food/42598082.html http://www.amazon.com/gp/blog/post/PLNK2OWVXAVSBWSRI. I had (-558) taken off. Could you please recitify. I work in research market intelligence. I would not have added the chowhound comment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wuthering123 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My edit^[1] had nothing to do with yours and my comment was not directed at you in any way. I was just explaining why I was removing references from the article (I've found that deleting references can be controversial even when they're totally unreliable). In the course of checking some other links in another article, I found a complaints.com reference (which would never ever meet our Reliable Sources Guideline). I did a link search and found a bunch more, so I was going around to different articles, deleting them. The chowhound link didn't look appropriate, either, so I deleted it as well.

By the way, welcome to Wikipedia! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:16, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

thesufi.com

Hi. This seems so complicated. I am a newbie whose website thesufi.com have been blacklited since i added it as an external link in some relevent articles. i guess it was taken as spam. i have spent hours reading how to remove my website from the spam-blacklist. however, i cannot edit it myself and can't find anywhere except here to put a message requesting editors to consider my appeal.. can anyone help me please.. sorry if i am writing this in wrong place, since i cannot see any form/forum to write.-----waleed, thesufi.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Waleedkrashid (talk • contribs) 17:33, 9 May 2009

This is where you would request removal from the blacklist:

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals (add your request at the bottom of this section)

I am not optimistic anyone will remove it since it appears you ignored many requests to stop and even had your IP blocked twice:

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:42, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your latest edit today indicates you still intend to force this link on us despite requests to stop. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:45, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Spam

Hi - did you mean for this to go onto Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam? Regards. JCutter (talk) 03:00, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I tagged both the user talk page for tracking purposes and listed the domains at WP:SBL for blacklisting when I get the chance. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:03, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Got it - thanks. Hadn't seen those on the users own talk page before, but I see what you are trying to do. However, that brings up another question - when to use the WP:SBL and when to use Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam (I had been posting suspects to the latter). Thanks. JCutter (talk) 03:09, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If in doubt, post to WT:WPSPAM. If blacklisting looks appropriate, an admin can blacklist directly from that page; there's no need to relist it on the blacklist talk page. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:12, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. JCutter (talk) 03:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I repeat the above. Thank you. I just need to know when to report spam and when not to (i.e. when simply speedy deletion is necessary). MuZemike 07:13, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd report it to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam if it's persistent or disruptive -- i.e., if it merits a level 3 warning or above. Even if it's a one time thing, I'd slap a live link on the user talk page using the {{LinkSummaryLive}} template like this: {{LinkSummaryLive|example.com}} (don't substitute the template with "subst:"). That includes a live link and makes it easier to track using the Special:LinkSearch tool if the spammer switches accounts (which they frequently do). That template also includes links to a variety of nifty investigation tools (some of which are temporarily broken) to allow you or others to dig around a bit if desired. The {{UserSummary}} and {{IPSummary}} templates also have some interesting spam investigation tools.

Those templates are optional; the main thing is to leave some sort of live link (i.e., with the full URL including the "http://") and to report if the abuse merits a 3rd level warning.

Thanks for catching these guys! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:21, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Frameset maze

Would you mind considering a puzzle I have encountered: An external link was recently added to Aquatic ape hypothesis. The link is www.aquaticapetheory.com which gives a short html page consisting of a frame to www.wesmannion.com, which is the same going to www.robertzubrin.com, which is the same going to www.newgallifrey.com. This pattern repeats (I stopped after 20 iterations). I tried this with a secure web browser and using wget. Perhaps if I were using some more common browser it would have shown a useful web page, but all I got was a blank window.

My feeling is that such a link should not be on WP, but I'm curious what all the frameset stuff is trying to do. What do you think? Johnuniq (talk) 10:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it serves any practical value that I can think of from a search engine optimization angle (probably the contrary, I'd guess). The tip-off is in some of the domain names as you step through the list of domains -- they're Universe Daily domains. See this page:

Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily

I don't know what the Universe Daily domain-owner's goals are -- it may just be an interesting exercise for him. Or possibly he's trying to exploit some browser insecurity I'm unaware of. This does offer us the opportunity to perhaps find a few more domains to blacklist. I tried to get a list of the domains the guy was using but my browser pooped out after a few. If it's not too hard, could you list any that aren't already blacklisted at Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily#New additions? That would be great.

In the zoology of spam, this is a very interesting catch -- thanks! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 13:40, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Glad to be interesting! Thanks for amazing info. I definitely will do as you suggest, and will report back here, but will need a little time. Johnuniq (talk) 11:24, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good luck -- I think you're on the right track. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:18, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I took your advice, see UNID. I'll leave it to you to follow up with whatever should be done next. Contact me at any time for anything related. Johnuniq (talk) 11:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If you have the time, can you post a note describing this latest tactic at Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/Universe Daily? That would be very helpful.

Thanks, --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 15:55, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Domain tracking

I saw a couple of the domain tracking links you placed on talk pages of individuals that I have given a spam warning to. Is that something you want people to add when they warn editors or is that something generate using some high-end knowledge to which I am not privy. I don't mind helping out by adding tha for you, I just want to know if I am supposed to. Thanks. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 16:58, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That would be great! I use these templates:

{{IPSummary}} -- for each anonymous IP address that you know of
{{UserSummary}} -- for each user account that you know of
{{LinkSummaryLive}} -- for each spam domain you know of

The LinkSummaryLive includes a live link (including the 'http://" part), so any future editor looking for instances of a spam domain using Special:LinkSearch will also be to see the user talk pages you've tagged with the link. Spammers are notorious for switching IPs and user names. Blocking seldom deters them but domain blacklisting stops them. This system helps us find the spammers that are never getting more than a level 1 or 2 warning for each account but hitting us with a lot of spam over multiple accounts over many weeks or years. Usually I consider blacklisting domains once a spammer's accumulated 3 or 4 warnings across all his accounts.

As for all the links embedded in each template, I'd be happy to fill you in if you're interested -- just let me know. I use them to track down other accounts and other domains belonging to the spammer. When I blacklist, I want to blacklist all the possible domains a spammer could hit us with -- not just the ones we've seen so far. This can be interesting and you gain insight into the minds of sneaky people.

I see that you flag a lot of our spam accounts -- perhaps 5 to 10% on some days. I so appreciate this. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:37, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would appreciate a little education on the different links. Anything I can do to help with the spam. Thanks! TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 23:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

SailOrbits.com -- Adding some flavor to the seafarer life !!!

Sailors, their wives, girl friends & family members express & share their life & experience more freely than ever !!!
A Sailor's world in true sense !!!
More & more we can keep talking about sailors, sea-life, ships & shipping........there is no end. Better, just experience it at a glance at http:// sailorbits.com
With Blogs, Forums, Games, Q&A, Slide Show, Polls, Groups, Jokes, Recipes & many many more features, its steps ahead of other existing Maritime Social Networking sites.
This is a small & sincere effort to make something like facebook/myspace/orkut……..It is only the platform, its upto you guys to make it successful. Those who already know what is a Social Networking platform might be wondering why would anyone launch another one………well, firstly, it was started as kind of a hobby. And secondly, its specially dedicated to Sailors.
For those, who are new to “Social Networking” concept, please read on:
This is a free social utility that enables anyone to connect with their friends, family, fans, classmates, and coworkers. With sailorbits, you can create albums, upload an unlimited number of photos, start a blog, join groups, manage events, post classified ads and much more. Sign up now to see why sailorbits.com is a better way to keep in touch!.
We have created a new Goup - FML. Users can add other new groups of their own. After logging in, Please go to “Groups”, either “Create a Group” or “Browse for Group” and then “Join”. Let’s make it another Orkut !!! Or should we call it SailOrkut ??

sailorbits.com is the finest Maritime Social Networking site of its kind in the world. Most advanced, feature rich Social Networking for mariners set it a steap ahead of its contemporary sites. --Samfml (talk) 09:41, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External Link Policy

Dear sir, understand your strict policy on external links. Actual saw a few other similar external inks (Example: seafolks.com) on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sailor and thought it might be allowed there to post my site's link as well. Sad to see tht you have removed my link while keeping the others untouched.--Samfml (talk) 14:37, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. See Wikipedia:Spam, especially the section, "Inclusion of one spam link is not a reason to include another". In your case, I was checking recent spam warnings and adding domain-tracking data to the talk pages. I did not add the original warning and the domain-tracking data is "benign" unless someone starts accumulating them across multiple accounts. I did not bother to look at the other links in these articles.

Thanks for making me aware of seafolks.com. It looks like this problem has been going on for a while and I have made a report at:

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#seafolks.com

Again, thanks for joining Wikipedia and bringing your expertise to us. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recurring spam to Honda CX series

Sheppola (talk · contribs) is back to his tricks on Honda CX series. You intervened once so I'm bringing it to your attention. -- Brianhe (talk) 21:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for letting me know; I left Sheppola a note after you posted this on 13 May. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:15, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suspicious blankings

Are edits like this and this to be reverted as vandalism? I'm always suspicious of blankings but I may be making too much of this. Your input would be welcome. Thanks Tiderolls 18:52, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:UP#CMT -- technically, it's the IP's right if it's his page. If it's not, you're free to restore it. In this case, one IP was technically blanking another IP's page, so you were correct to restore it.

As a practical matter, when someone starts deleting spam-tracking data, that's when I start considering blacklisting their domain; they're often gearing up for another round of spam.

Thanks for letting me know. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:17, 23 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Categories for discussion nomination of Category:User talk pages with Spam-warn notices

Category:User talk pages with Spam-warn notices, which you created, has been nominated for deletion, merging, or renaming. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the Categories for discussion page. Thank you. VegaDark (talk) 14:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding this issue, I could easily make XLinkBot (merely by changing its settings) make editors who get warned for youtube, myspace, etc. being categorised in a special cat, similar to the spam-categories. Would make it easy to remove these from the results you get, as these hardly ever need a further investigation (though they may need another type of investigation, for linking to copyright violations). Any ideas? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]