Jump to content

Wikipedia talk:Spam/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 3Archive 4Archive 5

More than two months ago I posted a Request Edit here regarding an edit here that added a citation to a website self-identified as someone's "personal portfolio". It looked like an obvious self-citation spam to me added by an IP address with no other edits. If anyone has a minute to take a look, it would be appreciated. I am not suppose to edit on account of a COI and nobody has responded to my request to remove the linkbait for months. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 20:29, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

@CorporateM:  Done Sunrise (talk) 01:31, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
Thanks @Sunrise:! If you have a minute, there is a similar issue here. David King, Ethical Wiki (Talk) 17:55, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
@CorporateM:  Done Sunrise (talk) 00:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

A template for blanking spam articles?

I've just seen a "Cheap shared hosting [phone number redacted] phone number@ website hosting india phone number. cheap website hostingservices india phone number" article get speedy deleted, and it was around for five minutes (and appearing in Google results) with an article body containing whatever SEO keyword splurge the spammer wanted.

Would it be useful to have a variant of {{courtesy blanked}} which explained that a page has been blanked for being unambiguous spam, and which added WP:NOINDEX, to reduce the incentive to spammers to create this kind of article? --McGeddon (talk) 11:25, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Just realised that this already exists at {{Spam blanked}}. Since Wikipedia:Spam doesn't mention this template at all (and it's odd that I've never once seen it used when other editors get to a spam article before me), I'll add it to the see-also. --McGeddon (talk) 10:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

contesting deletion

hi wiki, we would like to edit the article and resubmit the Athletes authority article and discuss only the creation of the performance optimization model. is this ok ~~Nick Harris~~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Athletes Authority (talk • contribs) 02:17, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Why Mapsofworld.com is blocked

Hello Wiki,

Can you guide us why mapsofworld.com is blacklisted.

And, what steps need to be taken in order to remove it from blacklist. Nitsnitz (talk) 09:30, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Asked and answered by your totally unrelated friend here yesterday. Kuru (talk) 12:11, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

this edit, adding to an external link is a new trick, to me at least. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:53, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Not sure how that would be a trick. The company is just adding extra information for their site's Analytics package. William Spaetzel (talk) 17:39, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 January 2017

I want creat a artical page i have created direct artical but it have deleted so i wnt creat artical here Rishi Kumar Kushwaha (talk) 18:02, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Blogspot.ae

Had a couple of IP's spam a link to articles on my watchlist from this domain. I was initially surprised as I thought blogspot was at least on the XlinkBot list, but I think that's the blogspot.com. Different TLD. Cross-Wiki search shows 200+ links on en Wikipedia, and others scattered. Worth adding to XLinkBot for now? Ravensfire (talk) 01:35, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Nevermind, looks like it is getting reverted by XLinkBot on at least some occasions but hadn't gotten to the ones I reverted yet. Ravensfire (talk) 01:57, 20 August 2017 (UTC)

Protected edit request

I wanted to reindeer this page to the top of Category:Wikipedia spam, since this is the main project page. 108.210.219.55 (talk) 19:44, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Done. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:26, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

enggcyclopedia.com

Just want a second opinion on the site enggcyclopedia.com. It looks pretty spammy to me and it is included in many WP articles' External Links. It appears that every page linked has this text: "Advertise directly with us. Get links to your website. Reach out to our reader base of engineering professionals. Email - admin@enggcyclopedia.com" ☆ Bri (talk) 14:10, 24 September 2017 (UTC)

Another problem is that sources for its articles are unlcear. I removed whatever remained of it in wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:39, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

Seeing this more an more such as:

Good ref does not support the content in question. Other is simple spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

In response to the recent discussion at ANI, I've started a discussion to change Help:Edit summary so it directs editors away from spammy external links in edit summaries: Help_talk:Edit_summary#External_links_in_edit_summaries --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Seeing this more an more such as:

Good ref does not support the content in question. Other is simple spam. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:28, 12 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 September 2018

2604:6000:1013:9AD:0:C033:948D:AEFB (talk) 04:29, 1 September 2018 (UTC)
 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. MBlaze Lightning 04:33, 1 September 2018 (UTC)

Videos section

WP:Spam#Videos contains this text:

"It has links on the video page—the page that plays the video—that go to a commercial site or to another spamming video, even if it is only one link among many legitimate links."

Wouldn't that pretty much ban all links to YouTube? If you add a link to a Youtube video, on, say, how a particular kind of food is made, the odds are pretty high that there will be a link to a "commercial" site somewhere in there (e.g., a link to the television company that originally produced the video) or that the automatically suggested videos will contain a suggestion for a video that contains a link to a commercial site (e.g., a link to a review of that candy, from a candy seller).

Maybe the problem is with the concept of a "commercial" site. What is that supposed to mean? Is YouTube a commercial site? Is its corporate parent's website a commercial site? (Please ping me.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:39, 30 March 2018 (UTC)

Any comments, or should I just boldly make this say something sensible? WhatamIdoing (talk) 00:03, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
There having been no objections for five months, I've deleted the statement in question.
I then also deleted the line that said copyvios were spam. They aren't; copyvios are copyvios.
This whole thing appears to have been added in 2007, and I think that a thorough re-write is in order. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:02, 5 September 2018 (UTC)

Refspam user warning

I've created {{uw-refspam}} as I keep on encountering academic spam and thought we could do with a boilerplate message to explain why it is a problem and request that they stop. Does anyone have any comments? @Jytdog and JzG: as I know you're also active in dealing with it (anyone else?). SmartSE (talk) 13:04, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Nice. Is this in Twinkle? Guy (Help!) 13:26, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Nope - not sure how to get it added. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Looks good to me. You should notify WT:WARN of this thread, as the documentation there will need to be updated, and that page is watched by UW template editors. --Bsherr (talk) 15:01, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks - will do later. SmartSE (talk) 17:02, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Thanks! The "template" I use is

Your contributions to date seem to be all about adding references to papers by a small group of researchers.
While we love experts here (see WP:EXPERT) we do not love experts who use their editing privileges to promote their own work, which is a violation of the policy against abusing WP for promotion. This is also considered a form of spam -- see WP:REFSPAM. Please also see WP:SELFCITE and WP:MEDCOI.
We do love experts, and it would wonderful if you would consider contributing more broadly. But please, enough of the refspamming. Thanks.

I want to encourage people as well as marking out the behaviro as clearly unacceptable ...some of it is too informal for an actual template message of course. Jytdog (talk) 18:58, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I went ahead and made a revision... thanks for creating this! Jytdog (talk) 19:08, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
Just looking at this again and I realised that refspam conflates the classic spamming of links inside ref tags with academic reference spam. They're very different beasts with the first being the work of experienced spammers whereas academics are most likely acting in semi- good faith. Would it make more sense to merge the academic parts with bookspam and maybe rename it the section as academic spamming? SmartSE (talk) 21:14, 26 November 2018 (UTC)

Trademark issues

It should be noted that making mention that certain terms also constitute a "trademark" under the Lanham Act does not constitute "spam". Such is actually a reasonably prudent step to avoid potential accusations of trademark infringement or contributory trademark infringement given the right set of particular circumstances, and thus it is actually good form of policy to make such mentions. I'm not going to make a proposal to officially modify the policy on this issue yet, However this is something that we all need to be cognizant of. 108.178.78.26 (talk) 05:23, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

This concerns an attempt at Circle jerk to mention that someone somewhere has a trademark about something. Johnuniq (talk) 05:43, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

In response to the recent discussion at ANI, I've started a discussion to change Help:Edit summary so it directs editors away from spammy external links in edit summaries: Help_talk:Edit_summary#External_links_in_edit_summaries --Ronz (talk) 19:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What is book spam?

@Qwirkle: has objected here to my calling edits such as this by @RobDuch: to 27 articles "book spam". @Drmies: also reverted some of those edits by RobDuch as "book spam". I am interested in how other users interpret "book spam". - Donald Albury 18:34, 13 January 2019 (UTC)

The Weaver book has 2-3 or more specific pages on each fort, with an introduction to each geographic area. I will link them in the articles. In many cases I was simply updating Weaver to the 2nd Edition. The only reason Weaver wasn't already in some articles is that I haven't got around to editing them yet. Lewis is a valuable overview book, useful to anyone wanting a concise, readable source. RobDuch (talk) 20:49, 13 January 2019 (UTC)
Well, if the book is useful, indeed, use it to cite specific information. Donald Albury, I think that listing a book without explicit warranty to do so is spam--and what I mean with "explicit warranty" is, for instance, a specific bit of knowledge or, for "Further reading" (a concept I find problematic) an obvious title or reference. Drmies (talk) 17:07, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Perhaps you find “further reading” problematic, but the briefest survey of actual articles suggests that Wikipedia itself does not, and that side argument should not be brought in to justify a misuse of WP:SPAM. The guideline is quite explicit: adding a reference for the benefit of the article and the reader, as was done here, isn’t “book spam”. Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Next, the entire point of “further reading”, ontologically and etymologically, is to offer the reader something beyond the article’s current boundaries. It is expressly intented to go beyond, not within, and, IMS, Wikipedia explicitly excludes “further reading” and “external links” which are already on the reference list. Qwirkle (talk) 17:39, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
Despite the arguments presented here, I still see the indiscriminate adding of a book to the Further reading sections of multiple articles as "book spam". If a book is a reliable source for useful information that is not yet in the article, use it as a source. If the book merely duplicates information that is already reliably sourced in the article, then what is the benefit of listing it as further reading? If I find a source that I think may be useful for developing an article, and I don't have the time to add it myself, I may add a note to the talk page suggesting it, but I never add it to Further reading. I still see adding one or more books to the Further reading sections of more than two dozen articles at a time as book spam, but I have been reverted, so I am done with those articles. - Donald Albury 18:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
That starts with a textbook-grade example of begging the question, you assert, on no evidence...and falsely...the the material was added “indiscriminately.” Says who? Next, you point out that you would not a add a source which you were not competent to evaluate - good practice, that- but what has it to do with the writer you accuse of “spamming?”
”Spamming” is misconduct, and should not be used to describe a disagreement over editing styles, or worse yet, as an excuse for not bothering to evaluate a source before removing it en mass. Qwirkle (talk) 22:09, 14 January 2019 (UTC)
I know there's been a great deal of local consensus to limit Further reading sections because of SPAM, SOAP, and POV concerns. I certainly remove new and upcoming publications from Further reading sections without much thought beyond checking if it might be a new edition or something similar. --Ronz (talk) 00:34, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Invoking “local consensus” in the context of drive-by deletion of work by the major contributor in the locale seems like a stretch, doesn’t it? Qwirkle (talk) 00:54, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
How about someone quotes the policy? "Bookspam is also seen as the addition of books to "external links", "further reading" or similar sections, although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information." These books add useful and relevant information. RobDuch (talk) 01:08, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding them to multiple articles like that is spamming. I'd certainly have removed them if I had come across them.
Besides the SPAM, SOAP, and POV problems with the additions, it detracts from our purpose of improving this encyclopedia by encouraging editors to look elsewhere rather than in related articles here. If they're already being used as refs in related articles, especially articles on supertopics, then they don't belong. --Ronz (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
so, as you see it, it isn’t necessary to actually evaluate a reference’s fitness, it’s just a simple matter of counting the number of articles it’s attached to? And the purpose of this...project.... isnt to inform the reader, so much as it to keep him mired in articles here? Qwirkle (talk) 04:36, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
so, as you see it No, that's not how I see it.
Also, I'm not talking about references, but I've not looked to see if REFSPAM might apply. --Ronz (talk) 05:46, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Then perhaps you could explain how your views differ from that view of them, which is based on your words above:”Adding them to multiple articles like that is spamming. That’s a blanket statement, based entirely on the number of articles the reference is added to.
And you are talking about references, BTW; even if this particular variant isnt a specific citation. Ref =/= cite. Qwirkle (talk) 09:35, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
This is feeling like WP:IDHT. I believe Donald Albury's original question has been answered.
These books add useful and relevant information. Howso? --Ronz (talk) 17:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
"Howso?" is exactly the right question. How does this book contributes something useful and relevant to that article? We don't even know that that specific subject is discussed in this book. Drmies (talk) 18:09, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
(edit conflict)Why not read them, and then see if you still have that question. Weaver is a little hard to grab at a library but Lewis isn’t. If that is too hard for you, you might wanna ask why a Smithsonian published work and its wider-published Naval Institute offshoot, both by Emanuel Raymond Lewis, prominently favorably reviewed, is such crap that it could only be added to a related article by a spammer. Qwirkle (talk) 18:42, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

I will note that "bookspam" is defined in a guideline, and Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines states, "Guidelines are sets of best practices that are supported by consensus. Editors should attempt to follow guidelines, though they are best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply." Based on the limited sample of users that have offered opinions here, I do not think that a consensus for a particular interpretation of "bookspam" has been demonstrated. I do not see either side convincing the other, at this point. An RfC might settle the question, but RfCs can be time sinks, so I won't start one. - Donald Albury 19:14, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...and I would submit that calling a long-standing editor’s work in an area he is obviously more familiar with than you “spam” is a severe violation of civility and assuming good faith, to say nothing of the level of self-satisfied hubris it suggests.
if the person who added them cant answer, it's spam) Adding snark in the edit summary doesn’t make your bad argument better. That’s been asked and answered already. Qwirkle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Why not read them The persons adding them or arguing for their inclusion should have read them and should be able to answer the question. If someone added them without reading them, they would be spam indeed. --Ronz (talk) 19:22, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
The fellow obviously has, and you obviously havent, and yet you have a strong opinion on the subject. What does that tell us about you? Qwirkle (talk) 19:40, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
And this has degenerated to focusing on editors, always a bad path to choose, and not just when there's spamming in question.
If no one can answer "Howso?", and no one has, then it's going to be treated as spam. --Ronz (talk) 23:31, 15 January 2019 (UTC)
Qwirkle, please don't edit-war over revert the Further reading entries until you've at least attempted to answer the question "Howso?". --Ronz (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2019 (UTC) (refactored --Ronz (talk) 03:32, 18 January 2019 (UTC))
I did answer "Howso?" in the second post on this thread, and it's been ignored. "The Weaver book has 2-3 or more specific pages on each fort, with an introduction to each geographic area." That fact hasn't changed, despite all the argument that's gone on. Lewis is an overview; Weaver goes in-depth on each Third System fort. I have not found another source that describes each fort in detail using proper terminology. RobDuch (talk) 01:11, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing it out. Sorry it was overlooked.
So for Weaver, it's a placeholder until it's added as a reference?
The explanation for Lewis is a bit vague. Sounds like it belongs as a ref in the supertopics, less so for the articles about the individual forts. --Ronz (talk) 04:21, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, Weaver is a placeholder. Lewis is in the supertopics already, and I wanted to put it in each fort because it's the most readable guide to the whole history of US coastal forts that I've come across. RobDuch (talk) 04:43, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
  • This should be relatively easy to solve. Qwirkle, can you please provide links to the publishers' websites? Book-based refspam is not really any different form garden variety refspam, nine tenths of the diagnosis comes from the objective authority of the source. Guy (Help!) 08:06, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
Here is Lewis’s book on Worldcat. Note that it has been in print more or less continuously for nearly five decades, that its initial publisher was the Smithsonian, later taken over mostly by the Naval Institute press. (Widening the search on Wordldcat to show reviews is also illuminating; this will also capture a similar work Lewis did for the Smithsonian internally.) Here is the Google Scholar pull; I think you’ll see that it sits in good company, no? Qwirkle (talk) 08:29, 16 January 2019 (UTC)
@JzG:, have you had a chance to look at this? Qwirkle (talk) 18:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)
@JzG:, I think I’ve given more than enough time for someone to register an actual objection to the use of these books beyond vague intuitions. If no adds anything here in the next couple of hours, I’ll be restoring the original edits. Qwirkle (talk) 18:37, 23 January 2019 (UTC)
Again, this appears to be WP:IDHT. No one is against the proper use of these books. --Ronz (talk) 20:18, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

And, once again, reverts are being used rather than discussion. If there's no further response here, the material should probably be removed once again. I think it would be very helpful for editors that feel different to summarize the case for inclusion. --Ronz (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

The case for inclusion has already been stated above, but apparently you didnt hear it. Lewis is one of the standard references for the whole subject of US coastal fortifications, pretty much the seminal scholarly work since they passed out of use in the US. Since bookspam requires actual spamming, i.e. promiscuously placing material willy-nilly for its own promotion, not the benefit of the article or reader, this obviously isn’t “bookspam.” The fact that someone is uncomfortable with the concept of “further reading” is not a justification to disrupt the articles to make that point.
Weaver is newer, and goes back to a specialized publisher, but the publisher is unarguable a subject matter expert. Both books provide a wider view of the subject area, which is exactly what “further reading” is for.
(It’s obviously not soapboxing, either, nor do they reflect a peculiar POV. I’ll leave why you scatter-shot the article with links to irrelevant policies for later and elsewhere, but it is suggestive.)
Since you have already conceded above there is no policy-based reason not to use this source, why have you removed it, @Ronz:? Why do you plan to remove it multiple times? Qwirkle (talk) 17:29, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for responding.
I asked for a summary. Thank you.
The rest looks like WP:BATTLE and an inability to WP:FOC.
Since you have already conceded This appears to be an outright misrepresentation. Please strike so we can move on. --Ronz (talk) 17:37, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Adding external links like that (and yes, 'further reading' reading sections are disguised external links sections - I understand the reasons for splitting certain works out of the external links section, but basically (even when not containing a true external link) they have the same function: point to non-wikipedia material in list format) is spamming. On a non-stub article (and even on a stub article) those additions are very unlikely to pass our inclusion standards (and if you answer the question 'does this work that you added contain something that is not in the article?' with 'no', then you don't understand our inclusion standards of external links, and if you answer the question with 'yes' you also do not understand our inclusion standards for external links), which makes this type of behaviour 'spamming' (and therefore: bookspam' in this case). Please use such material in a way that they deserve instead of bickering that about the definition of bookspam. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:06, 24 January 2019 (UTC)

Beyond an ISBN tag, there is obviously no actual link here, obviously, so you are essentially stating that, in your opinion, any external bibiliography is “spam”? I think it would take a good deal of special pleading to torture that interpretation out of the relevant guideline, and it also flies in the face of actual practice in many articles. Qwirkle (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: I wish you'd re-read your statement. Without quoting or linking to anything specific, you've glibly implied that "our inclusion standards for external links" essentially prohibit both "External links" and "Further reading" sections. It seems that any large-scale addition of a pub or link to multiple articles is considered "spam", no matter how relevant the addition is. RobDuch (talk) 00:19, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Adding the same content to many articles is spamming (a behavior). The likelihood of any content being strongly relevant to a large number of articles is slim, as this specific case shows. It's very relevant to the articles that already have it as a reference, not so much to the rest. Also, in this case, they were added as a placeholder to remind the editor who added them that they should be used as references in the future. While that's not spam, it's not appropriate either. --Ronz (talk) 01:12, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
No. Adding relevant, useful content to articles is never “spamming”, no matter the scale. If it belongs in the article, it doesn’t really matter whether it is added “vertically”, so to speak, among several edits to one article, or “horizontally” across several articles at once. If a book covers a particular area very well, it might be added to as many articles as it relates to. If it provides a wider overview to those articles, it might be better added as “further reading”, where it might get further read, given Wiki’s dislike of the same source being used both ways. Qwirkle (talk) 01:30, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Next, this case shows no such thing. Only someone completely unfamiliar with the subject, and proudly willing to remain that way, could suggest that. Qwirkle (talk) 01:35, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Yes, a book containing 'more information' in a further reading section is, rather obvious, material external to our encyclopedia. You do not link directly, but through an ISBN, still it is outside of this encyclopedia (and rather often, more directly linked externally). Further reading sections are just lists of external material with different degrees of usefulness and often an excuse to escape our external links guidelines.
And, as expected, 'relevant, useful' links is debatable, and it can be 'spamming', even if good intended. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:08, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
As generality, both can sometimes be true. In particular here, neither is. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
And when all's said and done, it's relevance that matters.
Yes, Weaver is a placeholder. --Ronz (talk) 17:26, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
And, as anyone who can trouble themselves to actually read the cite could tell you, it’s relevant. It’s a history of the wider subject, across an entire era. It would be perfectly appropriate to leave as “Further reading,” even though you don’t like it. Qwirkle (talk) 18:09, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Exactly.  I did not need to read the ref for that.  And that is exactly why this material does not belong.  What you advocate is linkfarming and allowing anything that is related or mentions the subject to be included. As I expected, a misunderstanding of inclusion standards.
In any case, there is no consensus on inclusion.  --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:31, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
To begin with, link farming is an actual concept, with a real meaning, which even in the most metaphorical, broadest sense, could never apply here. To set up a link farm, one has to make all the nodes interlink with each other, and has to get more than two or three nodes. Next, that assumes the only purpose someone could have for adding a link was nefarious. Next, it ignores the fact that Wiki’s ISBN page does not, in fact, link without intervention. The usual slam at other wikiteurs aside, this is part of the ongoing pattern on this page of slinging accusation after accusation, hoping some of the mud will stick. It hasn’t, except for some backsplash. Qwirkle (talk) 20:52, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Oooh. SOomeone knows the article, but not the policy(-shortcut). This is, in Wikipediaterms, linkfarming. Again, we do have inclusion standardsfor linking to external materials. Being disguised as an ISBN does not change the fact that the works, the books itself, are external to Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
It appears you are grasping at WP:LINKFARM, which, unsurprisingly, has no relevance here. This is not any of the categories discussed there. Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
I, on the other hand, have to still hear content relevant inclusion reasons of why omitting these books is detrimental to the presented information. Related to the subject is not enough, so we are still atthe same. Throwing in IDONTLIKEIT or mud arguments are ad hominim. I guess the fact that we have here a long discussion does clearly show that you are right, right? --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:42, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Accusing a wikiteur of spamming is a personal attack. Doing so when it is untrue exacerbates the misconduct.
I would suggest that when a pair acting much like a tag team goes through a laundry list of objections to something, none of them based on fact or policy, that something is going on. Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

I have gone through the edits again, and on all the pages the added documents are about the wider topic, not directly about thesubject of the page. I have therefore reverted them again out. They wereboldly inserted, reverted out. Such challenged material needs to be discussed and a consensus reached before adding them again. I notice that an edit warring warning has been given, the discussion clearly has not come to consensus, so I suggest that come to consensus first before re-inserting the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:03, 25 January 2019 (UTC)

There are doubtless tens, no hundreds of thousands of articles in which the “”Further reading” articles expand the topic beyond the article. If you have a problem with that, as say, @Drmies: does, that does not justify accusing another of spamming, linkfarming, or any other misbehavior. Given that no violation of the Spam projects peculiar- and I mean that in every sense but ecclesiastic- remit, why should you be any part of the consensus? Qwirkle (talk) 22:37, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Just a daft question if Lewis is so good why is it not being used as a reference ? MilborneOne (talk) 23:38, 25 January 2019 (UTC)
Not to speak for the original writer, but if you have a need for “Further reading”, using a work already in the article will almost guarantee its deletion. (That strikes me as daft, not your question.) Qwirkle (talk) 00:15, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Having just read WP:Further reading, it looks like I'm good to go if I point out which chapter in Lewis covers the third system of US forts, and which pages of Weaver cover a specific fort. However, I seem to have wandered into a wider issue in which some admins desire to limit (or eliminate?) FR and EL sections across the board. RobDuch (talk) 02:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I think I said a long time ago already that a specific pointer makes an inclusion more acceptable, but of course the best thing to do, as MilborneOne, says, is to include it as a reference. Not doing that, and dropping a link/entry in a whole bunch of articles, makes one liable to the charge of spamming. But "it looks like I'm good to go", RobDuch, it seems to me that Beetstra's comment means NO, not good to go. Drmies (talk) 03:19, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
@Drmies: they do not want to use it as a reference because that disqualifies their preferred option which is to have it as a further reading. Seeing that this link is/was on articles like Alcatraz and Fort Lauderdale both massive articles I cannot see how there a further reading is much warranted if this book only spends a couple of pages on the subject. So yes, even linking directly to the right pages gives me doubt that it will add much on those. And as this was/is added indiscrimiinate to those pages and many others, this behaviour, on this specific subset, is spamming (and calling a couple of edits of an editors spamming is something else than calling someonea spammer). And any more responses in kind and other extreme extrapolations to remarks have to stop. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:25, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Ummm, no. In some cases it would make sense to reserve a reference for further reading, in others it might not. In some cases it might make sense to add it essentially as a reminder, in other cases it might not. Each of these might strike different writers as better or worse practice, but that doesn’t miraculously make them “bookspam”. MilborneOne asked a general question, and he received a general answer, and he recieved it from one person who explicitly stated he wasn’t talking for anyone else, so where are you getting this “they” bit? Qwirkle (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Next, perhaps you could provide a diff for Fort Lauderdale? Qwirkle (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Finally, this is Wiki’s actual definition of “bookspam”:
Sometimes Wikipedia sees bookspam, which is the insertion of text mentioning books to call attention to the books, rather than to contribute to the article. I don’t think anyone familiar with the sources or the subject can see this here. Qwirkle (talk) 07:34, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Isn't it obvious that a top-ranking website which anyone can edit attracts spam? That spam comes in many shapes and sizes including stuffing mentions of favorite books into any page that might hold them. It is very likely that the people involved in this case are good faith and good editors, but if they also had a clue they would realize that it is hard for other editors to see why two-dozen mentions of a book should not be described as "book spam". People who are so offended by that description should not repeatedly add mentions of books. Johnuniq (talk) 08:40, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Of course Wiki is attracting spammers (an hoaxters and trollers, oh my!) constantly, @Johnuniq:.
And of course there would occasional cases where well-intentioned spam-hunters would mis-identify useful edits as spam by using simplistic models of what spam is and what it is not.
The problem is what comes next. When someone sees additions of a respectable source to a relevant article, their first instinct should not be to label it, and its writer, pejoratively and nuke it. They should, perhaps, lable it more neutrally and nuke it, and let others, even perhaps even the same writer, deal with it. Or maybe contact the writer. Or even actually research the sources and subjects, to make a more informed decision. Or maybe, if they aren’t willing or capable of evaluating the situation deeper, they should just move on, and find some real spam to nuke, and some real spammers to hassle.
What they should not do, IMO, is attempt to take ownership of the articles, and project their own failings on the writer. Qwirkle (talk) 16:45, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Qwirkle, just to show you I'm serious, I am going to drop an NPA warning on your talk page because of this "project their own failings" comment, which I consider to be a personal attack--especially since it comes after a paragraph full of gaslighting. Drmies (talk) 19:18, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
Tell me, @Drmies:, in what world is “gaslighting” not a personal attack? Qwirkle (talk) 19:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
That is not an acceptable or even meaningful response, and it's lousy bait as well. Drmies (talk) 19:33, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
To use Wiki’s own words, Gaslighting involves Using persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and lying.... Are you saying that doesn’t strike you as a personal attack? Qwirkle (talk) 20:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Still going on about calling this bookspam. Even if we agree on this not being bookspam the links are still inappropriate. Seeing this added to Alcatraz island shows that clearly. I will have a look whereelse this was added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:27, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

As mentioned elsewhere, @Beetstra:, the Weaver book has an entire section on Alcatraz. It’s listed in the table of contents, not just the body. Qwirkle (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
I will behave myself from now on. Alcatraz began its federal life as a third system fort, a small part of which is preserved and much more of which is in the basements of the prison buildings. Weaver has eight pages on this fort. Regardless, I will refrain from adding pubs to this and related articles until if/when I get to editing them in depth. RobDuch (talk) 20:47, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

I see we are making progress, thank you. Yes, I know the Weaver book has material on Alcatraz. I also know that Wikipedia has 8 pages on Alcatraz (10, if you print it). Now, the questions are several: is there info in the book that we do not have in Wikipedia? Is there info in the book that should be in Wikipedia? Is there info in he book that (significantly) expands on what Wikipediahas and that could not be incorporated? Of the info that Wikipedia has are there any statements (tagged or untagged) for which information from this book would serve as a good reference? Is there information in this book that is not covered by other works that are already mentioned/used on Wikipedia? I know that most of these questions are answered with yes/of course/absolutely, so that is the case you have to make (and that for each occasion) whenever you get challenged (for whatever reason). And understand that, in this case, that disqualifies this work as a further reading on these subjects (but there are places where this does/could belong). And because I know that most of these questions are answered with yes/of course/undoubtedly, the 'mass addition' too strongly suggest that most additions were inconsiderate of those questions (strongly evidenced by the addition to Alcatraz). (note: I have been vigilant about linking to external material (in the broadest sense of the terms) and I know the arguments carried forward - arguments which have proven to be straw men even under the best of intentions). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:14, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

I see that Alcatraz's fort is not neglected in the article. This is good, but if/when I edit it, I will add more with Weaver as a reference. Weaver is best at accurately describing forts in correct terminology. As I said, I will refrain from adding refs/links until I can edit an article more thoroughly. RobDuch (talk) 17:24, 27 January 2019 (UTC)

Spam on talk pages

This page discusses spam on articles, but not on article talk pages. Does Wikipedia have any guideline pages about that? I ask because of the comment that I noticed on Talk:New York City Public Advocate. Should the comment be removed, or left on? Is this even considered spam since it isn't masquerading as encyclopedic content? --Puzzledvegetable|💬|📧|📜 17:32, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

@Puzzledvegetable: If it is not helpful to the development of the page you can remove it based on that. It is however sometimes worth to have a further look at the edits of the editor who left the message and see whether they also spammed elsewhere on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:41, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Insta-reverts as a spam-publishing route?

Can anyone explain this [1]?

It's the instant posting, then reversion, of a spam EL. Why? I've seen a lot of these.

All I can guess at is that there's now an undeleted link, with the WP |oldid= param, which goes to the spammed version. Do ELs like this thus need to be revdel'ed?

As to the Herrysiddle (talk · contribs) account, then eyeballs and mops are welcome. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:50, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

mamazamu

Spammed here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:15, 10 October 2019 (UTC)

People who follow this page may be interested in the proposals at:

Please share links to other proposals that you think are related to external links and spam. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

"The current consensus on Wikipedia is that [...] anonymous solicitation [is] inappropriate."

Can someone provide a link to the discussion(s) that determined this? Otherwise, I would suggest removing the passage as unverified. Glades12 (talk) 16:09, 11 May 2020 (UTC)

Glades12, this content was moved here from WP:CANVASS in 2007 by @Trialsanderrors. I don't know exactly what that sentence means (much of this policy would benefit from a good copyediting effort), but I would not be surprised if the last time it was discussed was at WT:CANVAS in 2007. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Possible loop hole that might invite covert advertising of antique memorabilia

So, I found an image used in an article that is a faithful reproduction of a memorabilia/art produced prior to 1920, then link to the currently active e-commerce merchandise listing as the source. With regard to faithful reproduction image of antique maps, charts, art etc, if current e-commerce listings of the original item is allowed, it opens up a loop hole that may invite the insertion of antique item e-commerce listings as a source.

The image I noticed: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=George_W._Blunt,_No._11&oldid=975287064#/media/File:George_W._Blunt,_No._11.png which uses the current product sale listing at https://www.rarecharts.com where the original piece behind the photograph is sold for $500. Things like art and expensive memorabilia tend to remain in inventory for a long time to sell at the asking price, so this may present a risk advertisement slipping in. A policy modification may help prevent this. I am in no way suggesting that the uploader cited it with advertisement intent. Graywalls (talk) 19:46, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Commercial websites can be legitimate reliable sources, even if it would be possible for the rare reader (99% of the time, nobody clicks the links in the refs) to buy something at that link. Certainly we don't want article content that says "This is for sale now", but whether to treat these links as inappropriate is a matter for editorial discretion, not for a wholesale ban. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Copying

Why didn’t they mention copying things with similar names? -Cupper52 <talk> 16,01, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Do we really need to mention that? I think editors are smart enough to be able to apply the spirit of the rules, and to ask for help when it's unclear. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:49, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Commercial websites

There exists some hundreds WP articles having footnotes which link commercial websites like ebay.com, Amazon.com, walmart.com and so on. They are not so many in relation to 10 milions articles of the encyclopedia, but WP editors could be invited to a case-by-case evaluation and to clean up the remaining articles in order to prevent and discourage further spam, commercial links and payed editing on its contents.

As a general rule, the presence of a link or a banner pointing to a purchase page qualify the whole web page as commercial website that must be removed. A books review, a preface, an interview to the author are citable sources for WP, even if they are provided by a commercial website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.38.236.181 (talk) 21:27, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

How should we deal with the case of small time publisher's website linked from within book citations where the BOOK IS OFFERED FOR SALE right from that webpage? personally I'm allll for removing it but I understand some would object to that. For example, Jessa Crispin "She wrote the afterword to Melville House Books' reissue of Heinrich Böll's Billiards at Half-Past Nine." and that citation takes you to the publisher's page where you can DIRECTLY BUY THE BOOK. Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
Such links are discouraged per WP:ELNO, and indeed spammy. They should be removed, or replaced with something more neutral. The purpose of a store is to sell stuff, not really to provide information on the subject. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
They're discouraged in the ==External links== section, but the IP seems to be talking about WP:FOOTNOTES, and a seller's website is often a reliable source (e.g., for track listings on a music album, the name of the publisher for a book, etc.).
The specific proposal ("the presence of a link or a banner pointing to a purchase page qualify the whole web page as commercial website that must be removed") means that nearly every online source, including some of the most reliable, would be banned. Almost all good academic journals, newspapers, magazines, etc. have "a link or a banner pointing to a purchase page" (e.g., for a subscription to that publication), and quite a few have links to purchase related content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

We need a good essay about academic citation spamming

I have reverted plenty of academic citation spam in my time as a Wikipedia editor. But today I encountered something truly novel: an edit that both engaged in self-citation and simultaneously promoted it. The edit proclaimed, in part: "Scientists can also insert their findings in a relevant Wikipedia scientific article. The MIT study has proven that scientific articles on Wikipedia eventually receive more academic citations." This edit to Science communication was promoting academic citation spamming, to increase the citation count of one's publications, as a virtue! I quickly discovered that the editor is apparently associated with a PR agency, https://sciencecom-agency.com, the front page of which says: "We will insert your findings in a relevant Wikipedia article. This MIT study has proven that scientific articles on Wikipedia eventually receive more academic citations."

The idea occurred to me that we need a good essay about academic citation spamming, because some academics appear not to understand the difference between citation spamming (using Wikipedia as a subtle kind of press release agency for their research) and the kind of high-quality contributions that we want and expect from academics. (See also: Academic careerism.) Biogeographist (talk) 18:50, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

WP:CITESPAM happens from time to time with books, as well as journals. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
That's true, although WP:BOOKSPAM can be either academic or non-academic. "Academic citation spam" could include any kind of scholarly or scientific publication: journal-published and self-published articles, theses, books, conference proceedings, etc.
I could probably start a good essay on this topic by myself, though I am not sure yet if it is a high priority for me. I mentioned the idea here to inquire if any other editors agree with me that such an essay could be helpful, and because I was surprised that I couldn't find any information about this in Wikipedia namespace beyond the paragraph at WP:CITESPAM.
Academic spam is a topic that requires some subtlety, because there is an "academic spam spectrum": from acceptable academic self-citation (on the not-spam end of the spectrum, when an academic's work is already highly cited outside of Wikipedia and highly relevant to an article, and added without any apparent self-promotion) to citation of full-blown SCIgen-style fake publications (on the pure-fraud end of the spectrum), and somewhere in the middle of the spectrum is the sophomoric self-promotion of academic careerism, as well as perhaps other varieties. Biogeographist (talk) 20:21, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist:(edit conflict) There is {{uw-refspam}} which could serve as a starter. It's important to try to cover the WP:EXPERT perspective as well as the pure spam perspective. I guess that it would be sensible to have some examples of what is and is not ok to do. An equally ironic example that is similar to yours is Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_162#Refspam_across_many_articles. SmartSE (talk) 20:49, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Smartse: That's an impressive WP:COIN incident you linked to! I was once involved in uncovering a large-scale academic reference spamming incident like that too: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive998 § Dragos Simandan reference spam. The {{uw-refspam}} mention is helpful too. I was thinking of an essay written in a humorous style that nevertheless would have a serious message. Because I find this topic both serious and quite funny at the same time. Biogeographist (talk) 20:58, 16 October 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist:, have a look at this example I've been encountering for a while https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sweet_potato&diff=prev&oldid=890062392 the Andrew Crowe reference has been persistent been inserted about since the time that book came out by an IP hopping editor from Auckland, NZ. Graywalls (talk) 10:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Graywalls: I didn't look inside the book to check text–source WP:INTEGRITY, but at first glance, that book looks OK to me: it's also published by the University of Hawaii Press outside of New Zealand and is held in print by a fairly respectable number of important libraries in WorldCat. But—if the book supported the claim, which, again, I didn't check—the editor needed to cite a page number and not link to Goodreads. As long as the book supported the claim, I wouldn't suspect refspamming in that case unless the book was added to multiple articles. That example is the kind of book that the general reading population is likely to find accessible and interesting, so the persistent addition of the book may just indicate that the book is being widely read; the Goodreads link would indicate that too, since Goodreads is used by the general reading population, not principally by academics. That is my guess about the situation at first glance. Biogeographist (talk) 15:09, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist:, I beg to differ. See this source search result. In the previous diff I provided, did you look at the contribution pattern of the editor? You'll see that the 118.93.xxx.xxx is the only one chronically and persistently adding Pathway of the Birds: The Voyaging Achievements of Māori into numerous articles and sometimes building the contents a little bit for the purpose of shoehorning that reference into it. That's the very definition of WP:CITESPAM. That article's been cited only twice IMO, that's a much better indication. The library catalog is only an indication of interest level, not reliability. See https://www.worldcat.org/title/everyone-poops/oclc/50989046 UCLA has it, but there's really only a very few situations where a book like this would be appropriate to cite even though it's entirely possible to shoehorn this book into horse and have it make sense, yet it would be totally inappropriate in most context. Graywalls (talk) 15:24, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Ah, I see: I didn't notice the additions to multiple articles. As I said above, I wouldn't suspect refspamming in that case unless the book was added to multiple articles, but since it is being added to multiple articles by a mostly single-purpose IP address, that is clearly bookspam. Regarding the quality of the book: it's published by a respectable university press, and Google Scholar finds some serious book reviews of Pathway of the Birds in the International Journal of Maritime History, the Journal of the Polynesian Society, and Pacific Affairs. So I don't think that a dismissive comparison of Pathway of the Birds to the children's book Everyone Poops is warranted, but given the IP behavior I can agree that the particular instance you pointed to is bookspam. Biogeographist (talk) 15:48, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
@Biogeographist: And you're actually only seeing a fraction of it. Some person(s) have been repeatedly adding that book, and removing [better source needed] tag whenever it gets tagged and it's always from 118.93.xxx.xxx. The xxx on the end because it's always changing. But people/authors with a lot of money could easily farm it out to PR agencies, as you've mentioned and it would make it much more difficult to identify. So you got to look for editors who never interacts, seldom do anything with contents but adds lots and lots of lots of sources especially where the source added is not quite appropriate for the subject expertise or context. Graywalls (talk) 21:00, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. What shocked me about the edit I mentioned at the top was that it had the audacity to promote this behavior as "science communication" in a Wikipedia article. Biogeographist (talk) 21:18, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
For your particular concerns about two users you believe to be connected, it maybe best entertained at Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 17 October 2020 (UTC)
I don't think that being cited in multiple articles is a hard-and-fast rule; I often find a book that can support content in multiple articles and cite it repeatedly. I think the key indicator here is that there is a slow-motion edit war going on. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:58, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Email-adress in edit comment

This edit has an email address as its edit comment. Do I need to do anything besides the revert? Paradoctor (talk) 10:36, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Paradoctor, you could notify the editor (in case it was a mistake) and provide a link to Wikipedia:Requests for oversight if the editor wants to have it removed. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:39, 14 December 2020 (UTC)
@WhatamIdoing: Pretty sure it was intentional, as in spam. That's why I asked here instead of Wikipedia talk:Accidental self-outing. Since nobody feels strongly about it, I'll let it pass. Paradoctor (talk) 21:32, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Spam links in the middle of the article perhaps not covered

What about spamming like this ? I often see spam links used like this in the middle of the articles that seem like wikilinks to some of the keyterms of the articles unless carefully noticed. I don't see such spamming covered in this Page. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 09:07, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Covered by WP:ELNO, which is linked first thing under the section header WP:SPAM § External link spamming. Paradoctor (talk) 11:23, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Saikat Majumdar

Hello. I am not the creator of this article. But I have published the article from draft space after some minor copy-editing. I have no idea why this article was listed here as a "spam". I checked the article thoroughly; its contents and references look OK to me. Is there any link(s) which is problematic? --Gazal world (talk) 23:16, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

Because of the prior involvement of currently blocked user The Old School Student (last column of the table). As long as you have no connection to that user, I don't think you need to worry about anything. You might want to have a look at WP:NWRITER, though. Happy editing, Paradoctor (talk) 01:30, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. Yes. I am already familiar with WP:NWRITER, since my primary focus on Wikipedia is literature articles. The page passes NWRITER. --Gazal world (talk) 03:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
Gazal world, you could consider to add something like ‘article adopted by User:Gazal world, passes NWRITER.’ to comment on that spam page. Pages are listed there generally because of their creation history, not necessarily because they are spam themselves. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:38, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
@Gazal world: I'll happily defer to your judgment. It's just that the article does not make it immediately obvious to me how Majumdar is notable. Then again, my sympathies lean toward inclusionism. ;) Paradoctor (talk) 05:02, 13 January 2021 (UTC)
OK. Got it. I have commented on the spam page. Thanks. --Gazal world (talk) 07:59, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

Hi! I'm working as part of team of researchers on a project called the Interactive Nolli Map. It's a project began in 2005, and it is an accurate interactive map of 18th century Rome. Adobe Flash's expiration encouraged a team of researchers to update the map, and now it is equipped with significantly more detailed entries and tools that generally make it more user friendly. There are exactly 1320 ruins or objects listed in the map, and each object has a detailed entry, geographic information, drawings made at the time of the Nolli Map's creation. The map allows you to orient yourself in Ancient Rome, and it allows users to get a remarkably accurate sense of a specific object's geographic location that is nearly impossible to replicate in text. The map is completely free to access and requires no account or registration of any kind. We have read Wikipedia's External Linking Guidelines and think that it would be really helpful to update Wikipedia's External Links on pages that already link to the now defunct site and add specific external links directing users to that exact object in the map to the site on pages that don't link to it anymore, but we keep running into warnings about successive linking. I would love to talk to someone about the potential merits of this site in contextualizing an encyclopedic entry and its overall benefit to these entries. Please let me know if creating these links will be possible. We absolutely do not want to risk getting suspended. I've linked an example of page that I added a link to, so you can see the website and how it connects to the entry.

Column of Antoninus Pius Rendor21 (talk) 15:03, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

@Rendor21: I think MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is of interest here. You might also want to talk to Wikipedia:WikiProject Rome. Paradoctor (talk) 15:43, 11 January 2021 (UTC)
Paradoctor, @Rendor21:, I am concerned about the wide-ranging nature of these links being added without much guidance. They look like they're spammed to me. Elizium23 (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@Elizium23: Not sure which links you mean. The Nolli Map links, or the whitelist? Paradoctor (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"SPAMMING" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect SPAMMING. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 28#SPAMMING until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 12:58, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

"Wikipedia:ARTSPAM" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Wikipedia:ARTSPAM. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 February 4#Wikipedia:ARTSPAM until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 4 February 2021 (UTC)

Ref spamming by established publishers

There is currently a discussion about Anti-defamation League's corporate communications department having employees going around adding their own publications to articles that maybe of interest to people here. Graywalls (talk) 09:45, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:No original research § Publisher website links and WP:PRIMARY. — Goszei (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC) — Goszei (talk) 07:24, 10 May 2021 (UTC)

Discussion on spam in hatnotes

Thought you might be interested in these:

fgnievinski (talk) 02:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Spam/Archive_5&oldid=1190458914"