Jump to content

User talk:MER-C/archives/28

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Directory
User space: Home | Talk (archives) | Sandboxes: General 1 · General 2 | Smart questions · Cluebat
Software: Test account | Wiki.java | Servlets
Links: WikiProject Spam · Spam blacklist: local · global · XLinkBot | Copyvios | Contributor copyright


Deleting Bright Young Folk

[edit]

May I ask you why you are deleting the links to that website on some folk artist's pages? It's not spam it's an informative website and it's always relevant.— Preceding unsigned comment added by The Only Random Person (talk • contribs)

Can you think of a legitimate reason why one would move links to this site up like this? I can't. MER-C 02:26, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poke

[edit]

There is quite a queue, the poked reports are in there, but it may take some time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I understand. Unfortunately, there's still about 150+ spam domains that need to be investigated (it's that Internet Brands case) and it will take me at least a week to put together a blacklisting request. What a waste of time. :( MER-C 10:04, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Toss them all in the poke, it will take time. If you need user-reports, I can generate them for you. Note, if you find that there are many domains hosted on the same server (i.e., same IP), then you can try to poke the IP .. that should give a list of all those which are spammed on that IP. Enjoy ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

These spam domains are generally spread out over a /23 (I'm currently finding them through whosonmyserver.com after having exhausted the company's website, but the results have to be checked by comparison to this /23). User pokes on CellarDoor2001, LuvWikis and LoveWikis please. MER-C 10:20, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:38, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MER-C 12:39, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Still 24 local reports (plus those that it picks up while running) before it will do the 230 Poked ones .. sigh .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I had a feeling it would groan under the weight, hence me originally breaking it up into chunks. I guess its no more than 50 domains at a time from now on. MER-C 13:13, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It is fine, the only thing is that if A. B. or Barek would now poke one or two .. they would have to wait until this whole list is finished ... which may take a bit. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No problem here, I can avoid adding to the poke list until those are done. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 15:34, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Don't worry, the bot will handle it, but it will be slow. Saving seems to have commenced, by the way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:09, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to do something else, MER-C, could you look at pakmelody.com, I revertlisted it, but it may be good to blacklist that. Report is fresh. I am away for the weekend, see you on Monday! Happy hunting! --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:12, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"We merely search on INTERNET and index popular videos/audions openly available to anyone"... heard that one before. This is blacklistable. MER-C 01:47, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Poke is a bit behind, will take some time. I added counts to the edit-summaries of the edits to Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports of what is in the list still, no need to repoke if there are still things in the poke-list, it may be the ones you are waiting for (not that it is a problem, it eliminates duplicates anyway; that is also why the list may seem longer than it actually is).

On a related note, I am testing User:COIBot/RevertList.css on the bots (on wiki, mainly User:XLinkBot). Though I do not see the regular spam-fighters perform the sequence 'find spam - revertlist and remove from mainspace while discussing on WT:WPSPAM / the blacklist - and then blacklist' (which would keep the influx minimal while discussing; it is what I do, if XLinkBot gets ignored to much, I move on to blacklisting), would you 'want'/'need' a 'private' revertlist which feeds XLinkBot (e.g. User:MER-C/RevertList.css, which you could use to revertlist specific domains while investigating further (that .css ensures that only you and all admins can edit it, it is in a way a private protected page for non-admins).

Regards, --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:40, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the spam I deal with is of the Made for AdSense/shopping/SEO spam variety (from the straight scraped to what I like to call "excuse content" written by freelancers (similar to eHow/Associated Content, but with one topic per domain)). Blacklisting is open and shut for these cases.
I'm interested in having a private revertlist, it's a great place to shove those Internet Brands domains for the time being and a half-way house for the dynamic Indian IP spamming I seem to attract (e.g. musiqbuzz.com). Long term abusers will still go to the "scary" blacklist [1] ).
P.S. It turns out that newsg.us is Adsense related to two prior blacklisted domains -- 24breakingnews.com and 7issues.us -- so it belongs on the blacklist too.
P.P.S You might want to clean out the master revertlist of duplicates and matches against SBL -- if it appears more than once it's a good sign the domain needs to be blacklisted. MER-C 11:25, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the main: Sure, but sometimes blacklisting is more viable when editors have been properly warned, and still continue. It saves work to make the bot help in removing the domains (within the possibilities of the bot).

I will set it up, more testing is welcome. I will require proper logging of these (as usual for blacklisting) as revertlisting domains for which no proper reason can be found may have an effect on the bot operation (which is sometimes still disputed by regulars).

Regarding P.S.: part of the testing, I still have to see if the bot actually picks up the domains in the alternative revertlists.

Regarding P.P.S. Would be a good plan, would speed up the bot significantly. Though sometimes domains are removed again from the blacklist, and the spamming continues (as I had in one case where an admin required a link and delisted a domain, which significantly expanded the spam-sock-farm ...).

See User:MER-C/RevertList.css and User:MER-C/RevertListLog.css, I'll activate those. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It should now be active, the settings are there etc. Could you please notify me if you see that the bot makes a revert of a site which is on your revertlist (so that I actually know it works; you don't have to keep an eye on it constantly, the bot will not break pages because of this addition). I will not be here much the next couple of days (Ascension day and the following Friday are official days off in the Netherlands), but I'll see it on Monday. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A couple more points - please combine all the revertlist logs onto one page such that Seth's tool picks up these auxillary revertlists (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#log by month). Also, you should add a mention of my revertlist to the others.
Thanks for this, this new functionality will definitely come in handy. MER-C 12:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I intend to combine them every now and then. Maybe I should poke Seth to have the alternatives searched as well. I was already starting with making sure that the lists are 'easy' to be found.

Have phun with it. I am still hoping that more and more spammers will start realising their work is futile when they come to Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Have a moment?

[edit]

There's an outstanding question at WT:CCI. Given the low viewership of that page, more input would be appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 20:11, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hi, Please let the editor decide wether the link i added is relevant or not. This portal was made for public knowledge and free articles and i think it is veryrelevant here. Thanks Jon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.250.45.149 (talk • contribs)

Wait, what? Two editors (including myself) have reviewed your link and found it to be inappropriate, particularly #1. MER-C 02:19, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think u guys are wrong, but i will not pursue the issue, and will respect your wishes. please note that this was added as a genuine public servince purposes and not self-promotion, even if you think otherwise. thx and goodbye.

I see your still not an admin

[edit]

Every day that goes past the encyclopedia is worse off. 211.30.112.143 (talk) 14:17, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I still can't think of a good reason why I would want to do that to myself. MER-C 13:24, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to be an admin to get 'abuse', MER-C .. its not such a big deal in the end .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:26, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That's what they all say. MER-C 08:54, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting contribution for PC power management

[edit]

Hello.

I've found that you reverted my contribution for the PC power management page? Why? I just added software to the list of existing ones. Why do you consider that it's not the same as other entries?

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.89.135 (talk • contribs)

Before I can answer your question, I would like to know why all of your edits over the last two years involve adding links to emco.is. MER-C 12:02, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just provide information about products. Why do you think that it's bad? If you think so, you just remove the entire comparison table from the article, including links of other vendors. In any case you can't say that we contribute false or SPAM info. You can check it to ensure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.89.135 (talk • contribs)

You didn't answer my question -- why have you exclusively added links to emco.is? If you were "just provid[ing] information about products", then surely you would mention other companies, if you had to mention a company in the first place. And who's we? Are you editing on behalf of Emco Software? (If so, read WP:COI.) It goes without saying that Wikipedia is not a venue for promoting Emco Software. MER-C 14:44, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please check my contrubutions carefully. I wrote also about Subversion and other things where I'm an expert. I didn't apply any changes that go agains guidelines. In the current partucular case I've added another product to a comparision matrix. As far as it exists I think that my contribution will be helpful for community. At the end it's an open encyclopedy, so as far as material is useful, it should be here. Removing SPAM that isn't a SPAM looks like a work of editors who paid by some companies. Anyway, at the current moment I cannot say that it's your case. But I don't understand why you consider some contributions as "black" or "white", while they technically are equal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.207.89.135 (talk • contribs)
The reason for the reversion is that all of your edits over the last two years involve emco.is, hence me prodding you about it. You see, if someone comes along and adds links to one site only it gives the impression that said person might not be here to improve the encyclopedia (something that we see all the time). MER-C 07:20, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I did not add any links to wikipedia, specially inappropriate ones. I swears!!  :-) ---(I would have use my account at least). - 189.216.191.252 (talk) 00:55, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[2]. It might not have been you due to IP sharing. MER-C 02:05, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A perfect example of why wiki should pre moderate and not punish

[edit]

Hey there)

I came across an awesome page with a sh*tload of high-definition images of famous artists and thought it would be a good idea to add it to external links for some of the famous artists pages here on wiki. Considering there already are some external links like "there are xxx works of e.g. Monet on www.xxxxx.com" i thought it would be a nice thing to do. Why not? =)

And no, I am by no means affiliated to the website ytayta.com, just liked the idea.

UPD: haven't seen bigger collections anywhere, hence the same website on all pages.

86.62.123.34 (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Vlad

Ideally we would host such images ourselves, either here or on Commons. (You can view higher resolution versions of images by clicking on them.) There is no need to have external links to such images, unless they are copyrighted and the hosting site has permission to host them. MER-C 09:10, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the information, will be more careful=)

86.62.123.34 (talk) 09:14, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks!

[edit]

Hey, thanks for the heads-up about nofollow at Wikipedia talk:Soft redirect#Soft redirects to other Free wikis! --Explodicle (T/C) 13:18, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linkwatchers

[edit]

Sorry, the linkwatchers are down overnight .. I created a very bad bug this afternoon, and do not have time now to resolve it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Its back .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:48, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

user talkpage deletion

[edit]

Sigh, it seems a recurring theme, but I have restarted the discussion on deletion of user talkpages again .. could you weigh in at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#IPUser_talkpage_deletion_.._again, I am of the opinion that this destroys very valuable information, especially for the non-admins. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:12, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thermocouple

[edit]

I have a question about a recent edit to the Thermocouple page. Not a citicism or disagreement; just something that puzzles me.

You deleted a link (No, it wasn't added by me) with the comment "PLEASE DO NOT ADD YOUR COMPANY TO THIS LIST. IT IS AGAINST WIKIPEDIA GUIDELINES" It seems to me that the next link down (keyosens company) is, like the link you deleted, an informational page on a corporate website. So I was pondering the reasons for deleting the one and not the other. It was added by an IP address that appears to do nothing but advertise his own company, but the actual link is to content that adds to the reader's understanding of thermocouples. So, do we keep it out so as to discourage self-serving edits or retain it so as to improve the article? Guy Macon 16:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My anti-spam effort targets spammers, not articles. This particular spammer was blocked twice before, so the site is likely to be blacklisted. MER-C 02:00, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That makes a lot of sense. Thanks! It's really nice the way that works out, actually; someone like me who is only interested in technical content would have never noticed that he was spamming many different Wikipedia pages with the same website. When just looking at one,t looks legit. Guy Macon 13:37, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I noticed that you put this warning on the spammer's talk page:

"This is the only warning you will receive regarding your disruptive edits. The next time you insert a spam link, you may be blocked from editing without further notice. Spammers may have their websites blacklisted as well, preventing their websites from appearing on Wikipedia."

After getting the above warning on 28 May 2010, he spammed the thermocouple page -- again -- on 29 May 2010. I monitor a number of electronics pages and look at recent edits for technical accuracy, and seeing a bunch of spamming attempts followed by reverts is annoying. It's time for a LART, IMO. Guy Macon 14:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It may be a week or two before blacklisting goes through due to backlog. MER-C 02:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On 3 June 2010 the spammer added the link again, and MER-C removed it again. The spammer also deleted the warning on his talk page, so we know he read it... Guy Macon 07:55, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks...

[edit]

...for taking care of some heavy lifting at my user page. See ya 'round Tiderolls 18:19, 31 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to be a spammer in your openion

[edit]

Ok, it seem that I'm not familiar with wikipedia & how to deal with it & its community. I was looking for a way to contact the person who I think that he is considering me a spammer while I ensure that I'm not, Finally I found that page:

& I wish try to declare my point of view, now let me start; What I know is that a spam link is that one put where it shouldn't be & I think that I put 3rbsat.com link in a strongly related page not spamming it. please I need you to tell me why my link is a spam, & let me remind you: The link was :

& the page trying to edit is Al Jazeera Sports The link was for a page on a site that provides a live steam for Al Jazeera Sports FREE channel I'm waiting for you to give me a reason to consider me as a spammer, & if you could, I promiss not to try doing that any more, as what I'm doing is purely non-spamming — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.233.68.5 (talk • contribs)

Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting Satellite Direct software. MER-C 06:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

3rbSat is not made for Satellite Direct, & any site has the right to put ads within its pages, 3rbSat is providing a real service, if we exclude its whole ads, the result will be a real website introducing a real service for its audience. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.98.193 (talk • contribs)

Um, no. 3rbsat just embeds a player from Al Jazeera's own website. MER-C 09:15, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, the idea simply is that 3rbsat is a collector for TV channel streams from different sources, somthing like a search engine for tv channels only, on condition that every channel official site link (SOURCE) is applied at its corresponding channel page without the (NOFOLLOW) parameter, plus the copyright sentence present in every page of 3rbSat saying "•All Channels Names & Logos Are Trademarks Of Their Official Owners" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.95.9 (talk • contribs)

Why link to an ad riddled scraper site when you can link to the TV stations' sites instead? MER-C 10:12, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because many channels official sites doesn't provide a live stream like Al Jazeera Sports which has no stream on its offical site, the only official stream is for Al Jazeera main channel, plus there are links on wikipedia for live channel sites instead the TV stations' sites, I can give you an example If you wish. (With respect to you 3rbSat is NOT an ad riddled scraper site) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.95.9 (talk • contribs)

"[T]here are links on wikipedia for live channel sites instead the TV stations' sites". Not an excuse for adding yours.
I should have brought this up earlier but can you explain this edit (I want to know why it was inserted above the official site) and this edit? MER-C 11:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"[T]here are links on wikipedia for live channel sites instead the TV stations' sites". was not an excuse, it was an answer for your question.
that edit was a mistake & I didn't repeat it as I realized the error after was edited by you.
that edit was done as when I made that edit I didn't understand why my edition was undone while that was accepted, I thought it might be some robot error or somthing like that so I tried to fix it, I told you I'm still not familiar with wikipedia.
Look man I'm not here to replace someone else, although I may feel some sort of inequality, but this is not our main disscussion point now, my main target of that disscussion not to put 3rbSat link anywhere on wikipedia, although that might help me alot, but as I told you, I'm here only to declair my point of view & introduce my self as a non-spammer.

Let me weigh in here. "[T]here are links on wikipedia for live channel sites instead the TV stations' sites" is not an answer to the question, the question was 'why link to an ad riddled scraper site ..'. But just FYI: WP:EL states that the site should 'add' something to the page, etc. etc. The link you are providing, and even a live link to the Al Jazeera sport channel view site, would be, IMHO, a violation of 'we are not the yellow pages'. If people are looking for the live channel, they can go to Google, if they want to know information about the channel they go to Wikipedia. Note that official pages violate a lot of WP:EL, but they are there because they are granted a special place. So as long as there is a link to the official page of the sports channel, there is no need to link to scraper sites, even subpages with the streaming, &c. &c. We are writing an encyclopedia here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:20, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I agree with every word, but the question was "Why link to an ad riddled scraper site when you can link to the TV stations' sites instead?" & I tried to answer it by getting a prove from a live Wikipedia page, & if "If people are looking for the live channel, they can go to Google, if they want to know information about the channel they go to Wikipedia" is a rule in wikipedia I don't think it's applied firmly, in conclusion I assume that you consider - for some reason - that 3rbSat is a low grade website that cann't be among other similars, that is your point of view & I cann't change it here.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.237.96 (talk • contribs)

No, that is not my opinion, WP:ENC shows pretty much what we are trying to write here, and WP:NOT#REPOSITORY and WP:NOT#DIRECTORY are examples of what not. I have no opinion about the site, just that linking to the live streams does not tell about the subject. As such, the situation is similar to "linking to both 'website.com' and 'website.com/streaming'" (in comparison to "linking to both 'website.com' and '3rbsat.com/streaming'"). The former is not something we do, and is covered by WP:ELNO, so why should we do the latter. There is no reason to link to any of the /streaming ones, as they don't tell more. As simple as that. And if a site is then ad-riddled, that only makes it less suitable for linking. But if you want more direct suggestions whether a link should be included, you should be on the talkpage of the page where the link should be included, and make your case. If there is sufficient support, the link can be included (and that is a technique that WP:EL, in its intro, strongly suggests. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:56, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I read Wikipedia:Other stuff exists I found that I could make a comparison that might be valid, so if there is no need link to any of the /streaming ones I wish you would take a look on Al Jazeera External Links, there are 6 links under Watch Al Jazeera online title, I just need to understand !!!— Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.152.237.96 (talk • contribs) .

Well, you did not read it well, that other links are there is NOT a reason to include others, it may indeed be a reason to exclude others (as some state it, maybe we did not get to it, yet). However, this is what you mean, and I explained it here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:34, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I think that is more fair now, & that was the core "If you have a rule that make you exclude someone, why others remain byond that rule !!" & I didn't request add 3rbSat to any wikipedia page throughout this disscussion, but I only had that wounder. :)
I confirm that you are doing a great work here in Wikipedia & I wish I could be a supervisor here someday.
Best wishes & have a nice time ....

WP:TRR

[edit]

Not to be rude, but I want to make sure you don't exceed the Three-Revert Rule here... :| TelCoNaSpVe :| 23:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Reverting spam (=vandalism) is exempt from the policy. MER-C 03:06, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

wood-pellet.org

[edit]

My sites are relevant and educational to all topics linked to, you deleted mine because of adsense? But yet you allow commercial sites selling products an edge. 71.161.70.2 (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relevance and Adsense (a mean of identifying related sites) are not part of the definition of spam. However, this most certainly is. Needless to say, Wikipedia is not a tool to increase the value of your domains. MER-C 03:06, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree, the offset was my misunderstanding of my link disappearing and be added again without a notice. But I fully understand now. Also I can assume my other older links where deleted as well for punishment on other topic pages but yet I see other sites promoting adsense. Maybe I'm wrong. In short, it was an simple mistake. That is why I do not understand why wiki won't preview all links (pre-published moderated) before issuing blacklist threats. Either a "yes" or "no" Not let it ride out and decide to issue punishment later on to the contributor 64.223.151.188 (talk) 15:48, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You were warned, thus you should have noticed a large ugly yellow bar when you made this edit. I agree that Ckatz should have handed out more warnings. As I pointed out your edits were disruptive, hence the blacklisting threats.
We don't have the manpower to prescreen links. This is also the reason why you see other spammy adsense links around the place -- we haven't got around to removing them yet. MER-C 03:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Happy MER-C's Day!

[edit]

User:MER-C has been identified as an Awesome Wikipedian,
and therefore, I've officially declared today as MER-C's day!
For being such a beautiful person and great Wikipedian,
enjoy being the Star of the day, dear MER-C!

Peace,
Rlevse
00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A record of your Day will always be kept here.

For a userbox you can add to your userbox page, see User:Rlevse/Today/Happy Me Day! and my own userpage for a sample of how to use it. — Rlevse • Talk • 00:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(wonders if the spammers will give me a break today... nope) Thanks, Rlevse! MER-C 10:16, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reverting all the bad external links spam! Hekerui (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CCI?

[edit]

Hi. :) I've never really been sure how to work this CCI. I'd like to apply my mop and archive it, but I can't quite work out what remains to be done. Can you clarify? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 14:00, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The usual -- both sections are lists of images. I think the map images are OK but anything photographic should go. I'm not sure about the rest, it's been a long time since I worked on that CCI. MER-C 03:32, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I sometimes wonder ..

[edit]

Why do you first report things to WT:WPSPAM, already noting to  Defer to Local blacklist, and then immediately you do that? Why not just report it immediately on the spam blacklist. I would think it keeps the project page a bit emptier, and (as for this one), it is not like we are going to spend lengthy discussions on it anyway, and on the spam blacklist it might make it easier to review without having to go to the discussion, which may make us admins more inclined to blacklist it immediately. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:21, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  1. WPSPAM archives are the most comprehensive and easily searched. It's allowed me to catch quite a few repeat spammers where domains were blacklisted but we missed one or two domains e.g. [3] 2. (This practice dates back to the Hu12 days, where he blacklisted stuff directly from WPSPAM.) The archives serve as my extended memory.
  2. I can build or park works in progress there, possibly for collaboration, without cluttering up blacklist talk. I may also decide to send something off to the blacklist sometime after the initial post.
  3. I don't post mini spam reports on talk pages as they are harder to maintain (just tracking urls), to make up for this I post on WPSPAM and blacklist talk.
  4. Posting all of my spam reports on the one page helps me to maintain them.
  5. I don't particularly like meta's spam templates -- they take up too much space and parser resources. This becomes important for large investigations.
  6. Ideally, spam reports should be in the one place (see #1 above). Perhaps we should have a spam.wikimedia.org for this purpose.
Old habits die hard.
P.S. LinkSaver seems to be a bit slow lately (e.g. the time between it saving the report and listing on Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports is increasing) -- is it leaking memory? MER-C 12:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think that 'old habits die hard' should be #7. I see the point. Makes sense as well. When I search I generally use Eagle's tool (or I don't care and just blacklist :-D ).

LinkSaver still has a lot of work to do in the background. I noticed as well that it .. takes its time between edits, it may be that the repairs and other actions in the background are taking its toll. We are getting closer to having everything back, so it should be fine, soon. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:08, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think I know why the linksaver is sluggish .. on Meta it is on full speed, saving a local report every 2 minutes (and there still is a list of 37 waiting ..). We were running from an empty database for some time, so I think there are a higher number of false positives in there (the bot counts 'how often did this user add this domain' and compares that to the total .. if you have in the beginning one editor adding 4 youtube.com links, he may pass the limit, something that will not happen on a database with >40 million records). So the bot got too much to save.

Having said that .. the three databases are now completely repaired, we are back to the full list again. I see in the live feed editors who have added 19699 links (user:Pohick2; why is they not either whitelisted, or in some of the auto-whitelist categories), and domains which have been added 34906 times (flickr.com, why did I not put that domain on the 'do-not-count-these,-we-don't-care-anymore,-it's-too-much-anyway-list' ). Happy hunting! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You are now a Reviewer

[edit]

Hello. Your account has been granted the "reviewer" userright, allowing you to review other users' edits on certain flagged pages. Pending changes, also known as flagged protection, will be commencing a two-month trial at approximately 23:00, 2010 June 15 (UTC).

Reviewers can review edits made by users who are not autoconfirmed to articles placed under flagged protection. Flagged protection is applied to only a small number of articles, similarly to how semi-protection is applied but in a more controlled way for the trial.

When reviewing, edits should be accepted if they are not obvious vandalism or BLP violations, and not clearly problematic in light of the reason given for protection (see Wikipedia:Reviewing process). More detailed documentation and guidelines can be found here.

If you do not want this userright, you may ask any administrator to remove it for you at any time. Courcelles (talk) 03:16, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. MER-C 08:35, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Just wanted to...

[edit]
The Working Wikipedian's Barnstar
Thank you for continuing to put your time into helping keep Wikipedia clear of copyright problems, including all the work you put into this CCI. Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I want to be sure you know that it is still noticed and appreciated. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 18:04, 7 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. MER-C 05:39, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Google analytics

[edit]

How can I find which sites are using the same Google Analytics tag? You seem to know how to do this. Thanks. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:36, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

View the HTML source of the page, look for something of the form UA-X-Y. The X is the account number and should be unique, the Y is the site number of account X. MER-C 08:38, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I know that bit. I just wondered if there was a tool / site which would allow me to find websites using the same analytics account. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:40, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually I might have answered my own question with a bit of searching. http://reverseinternet.com/ allows you to plug in an analytics or adsense account and get (some) of the sites using it. I know it doesn't get all sites as only two of my four sites are listed. Looks like a useful tool though. I wonder if there are other similar tools. --Simple Bob (talk) 08:45, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. Unfortunately it's incomplete, so I'm not sure how useful it is. It also requires registration. The old techniques (WHOIS, googling Adsense IDs, using information on the spammed sites, etc) are still your best bet. MER-C 08:54, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Roger and out. --Simple Bob (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Thanks for cleaning up after me ... I missed that iqsociety.org had already been reported; I should have just added the additional IPs to the original report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 03:11, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. I think a site reported three times in the last week would be very close to blacklisting. MER-C 05:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks

[edit]

Merci, MER-C, for reverting users re www.oxlyrics.com & showing me useful templates. Trafford09 (talk) 15:03, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

For example, in the spam report for White Digital Media Group, how do these links eventually get cleaned out? Is there a bot that gets sic'ed on the list? Or does someone have to do it manually for those that can't be handled with rollback? I spent some time yesterday looking through various spam-project pages and couldn't find any description of how this is done. I saw a mention elsewhere of 'mass rollback', but any mention of rollback seems to come with an admonition that it's only to be used against obvious vandalism. Thanks for any leads. Best, CliffC (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I know it's annoying (especially with refspam) but spam removal has to be done manually. Revert everything you can with rollback (remember spam => vandalism), this is the mass rollback they're talking about. Removing and scrutinizing remaining links will also help to find other spammers and sites. COIBot reports have undo links, if that helps. MER-C 02:40, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks, I was afraid that might be the answer. I was hoping there might be some sort of take-my-best-shot bot that would dig in 'below' the topmost edits and at least get rid of external links. Cleaning up refspam is particularly time-consuming, I've learned with the Trademarkia stuff (some of those links were added by 'real' users so I left them alone). Mass rollback seems to work in monobook skin but not with the newer 'vector' skin I use, that's just as well because I'm accident prone and will have to switch over to monobook momentarily to use it. I'll tackle some of the White Digital Media links. Best, CliffC (talk) 18:42, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Not a Barn...

[edit]
The Excellent User Page Award
For your awesome Wikiopoly game (or is it?) on your userpage, I hereby award you this barnstar. Well done, Sir. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 05:51, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. MER-C 06:53, 21 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hey!

[edit]

It looks like you broke the system .. (this needs a fix, this type of errors happen .. ). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:17, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I was hoping that was not the case. You should try fuzz testing it. By the way, the linkwatchers are three days behind. MER-C 10:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong: 3.5 days :-(. I am trying to speed up the system, but it seems that a lengthy conversion/backup task in the background is eating too much time away from MySQL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to go slowly down now .. on 79934 (mainspace) + 21300 (userspace) edits to be stored, analysed and displayed by the bot (while new ones come in and fill the queues... ) :-(. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:51, 23 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the talk page fix

[edit]

Haven't been vandalized for months, that was my punishment for exposing the great Popeyes Chicken & Biscuits hoax. Cheers, CliffC (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I thought it was some disgruntled spammer. You're welcome. MER-C 04:57, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

VPC

[edit]

— raekyT 23:40, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Meonstoke

[edit]

Hi. I have expanded the article on Meonstoke. However, as I am new to this game, I thought I’d contact people who have contributed to the article as it now stands before I change it. My proposed version is on my user talk page. If you are interested, I’d welcome any comment, changes, suggestions. Thanks Gramorak (talk) gramorak 11:54, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

St. Sebastian (Botticelli)

[edit]

Today I attempted to improve this very thin article by adding some properly cited material. I noticed on the talk page your charge that a previous version of the article had a serious "copyright problem." I'd just like to ask, are you sure? As far as archive.org knows, the page from which you suppose plagiarism came into existence after Attilios' November 2005 version of the article for Wikipedia. Since Wikipedia content is licensed to be free to anyone for any use (as far as I understand), nothing would be unusual about the Web Gallery of Art's borrowing (though certainly, if it is a borrowing, the failure to cite the Wikipedia source falls short of best practices!).

Shouldn't the material be restored to the article if there is no positive reason to believe it was not originally written for Wikipedia in 2005? Wareh (talk) 18:49, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See [4]. I wouldn't believe the Internet Archiver here, the earliest date is when the page was first crawled, not when it was created. MER-C 02:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, thanks for the further information. Wareh (talk) 03:03, 3 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about spam website

[edit]

I own vocabwilleasy.info. Sorry about spam my website here. After now, I will decide after mature consideration when edit in wikipedia. But I think the link in http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Picture_dictionary&diff=prev&oldid=377113213 is suitable with wikipedia. Can you undo it for me. Thanks a lot — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lifeisgoodnow (talk • contribs)

"decide after mature consideration when edit in wikipedia"... our conflict of interest guideline will be helpful.
And an observation: You need to know how the addition of that site benefits the encyclopedia? (Hint: read WP:EL.) MER-C 06:10, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Mani the parakeet

[edit]

Hi, your edit resulted in an error – "Cite error: Invalid ref tag; no text was provided for refs named REF2; see Help:Cite errors/Cite error references no text". As such, I have reverted it. Cheers. – S Masters (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, a bot got to it before I could, so never mind. – S Masters (talk) 04:31, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That "reference" was spammed persistently over the last few months or so. I simply failed to remove all instances, which I have done now (hopefully). Stupid refspam. MER-C 04:35, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Haha, I know what you were trying to do. I just checked out that website and I agree with you that it should be removed. Well spotted. :-) – S Masters (talk) 04:46, 6 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong?

[edit]

What is wrong if I add a value information on this page? www.mairkshatriyas.com is not a personal website and it is 100% relevent to this topic! The artcile wriiten on www.mairkshatriyas.com is 110& relevent to this page. It explains about Vermas, Kshatriyas, Goldsmiths in a scientific way. So why did you remove the information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.195.203.74 (talk • contribs)

a) How is this edit appropriate?
b) The article appears to plagiarize from the Wikipedia article Mair Rajputs.
c) Your addition of the external link embellishes the site.
I can see how this link can be included but the plagiarism presents problems regarding WP:ELNO. MER-C 09:32, 7 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

CSBot notices

[edit]

Hi. After conversation with Aymatth2 at my talk page, I've made some changes to the Bot notices: Template:Csb-pageincludes, Template:Csb-notice-pageincludes and Template:Csb-notice-pageincluded. I'd really appreciate feedback on that, since I don't have the option of talking to Coren about it (he hasn't answered my recent e-mail; hope all is well with him!). The conversation is at User_talk:Moonriddengirl#Request for Comment. The changes were implemented to try to help soften the blow of false positives, because all of us who read Coren's talk page know how very irritating they can be to people. The Bot is important, but we don't want it biting any more than necessary. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 15:15, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Help - I see a backlog being created ..!

[edit]

Hi MER-C! You may already have noticed, I am playing with the LinkSaver module, and have been rewriting parts of that. I always noticed that the local reports on meta did not get ANY attention, so .. Category:Local COIBot Reports - Category:Open Local COIBot Reports

I am still tweaking the system .. and the auto-cleanup should be arranged as well. I could use some help with the categorisation (where does Category:Local COIBot Reports get categorised? - the stale/ignored/closed categories when they start to exist).

COIBot will try and keep these reports up-to-date .. maybe you could start keeping an eye. I will start poking Erwin again to get the nice 'add' that we have on meta as well.

Sorry for being a bit incoherent here ... trying to keep up with the bot to see if it does not make major mistakes. Have a nice evening/day. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:45, 15 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'll stress test this when I get the chance to investigate some Chinese wholesale spam. Friday, perhaps.
Also, can you please clean up {{spamlink}} and friends a bit -- for the larger spam cases the transclusion limit becomes an issue. I notice that Shadow1's linkwatcher search is dead. MER-C 11:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The system should not have changed dramatically. Feel free to update the templates that make the lines show: User:COIBot/EditSummary & User:COIBot/Otherlinks. There are at the moment more fields than are necessary (will cut some at some time to speed it up and make the files smaller), and I am still working to get more included. Pff .. need to document this ..

I have removed shadow's linkwatcher. The problem is not what is in the template, it is mainly the transclusion of the template itself, I think. Maybe for these big cases you should just make a subpage for the item, and not transclude it, but just link it. Only problem may be to find them back in the searches. Transcluding them on the page is not only annoying because the page does not display properly .. it is also a problem because of the size. My computer did not like blacklisting one of the knockoff ones, it timed out and gave errors. I had to do that one by hand, and not by script. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Template limits#Post-expand include size. The problem is related to what's in the template: the smaller the HTML size of the template, the more of them we can fit on one page. The issue at meta is that {{spamlink}} uses expensive parserfunctions. (Fun fact: to determine the existence of pages, my bot framework asks the parser to parse {{#ifexist:Example|1|0}} up to 500 at a time. It takes about 15 seconds, most of which are the server crunching.) MER-C 14:13, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm .. maybe more should go. Most of it was added by A. B., I expect they uses most of it. Maybe you should ask A. B. to have a look. But for the rest, I think that use of sub-pages for bigger reports is a better option. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've noticed that the "DomainsDB.net" link seems to have been down for a while. Might want to ask A.B. first, but I suspect that one could also be removed. --- Barek (talk) - 15:19, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Image list?

[edit]

Hi. :) Can I trouble you for an image list for a CCI? --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:16, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) I tried out a new function I've been writing for VWBot to list the images - it does list all of the deleted images too, so I don't know if MER-C's way is better - but I figured I'd offer my services. VernoWhitney (talk) 12:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Fabulous! And appalling. :/ (Though after my first heart-stopping moment, I'm relieved by the redlinks!) (Is it legal for your bot to rearrange them according to what is FURRed and what is not? Or is that even possible?) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:02, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not that far along with the coding yet - all I can offer is what I copied there which is a list of all logged uploads with duplicates removed. I'll put rearranging by FUR/licensing on my list of things to do with images, but that will be a ways down the road. VernoWhitney (talk) 13:17, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, thanks. I'll put some structure to that one when I get a chance, though somebody else is going to have to evalute the tricky ones. I stick with more obvious image questions. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My code is 10 lines cobbled up in about 15 minutes and effectively has the same functionality. I have no time to extend my own at the moment, and probably not for a few weeks yet.

"Rearranging by FUR/licensing"... if you do do this, consider fetching multiple image description pages at once using the API parse module (parse the wikitext {{image_page1}}--NEXT PAGE--{{image_page2}} etc) for performance reasons. It should be safe to send batches of 20 at a time. MER-C 13:48, 22 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

354

[edit]

No, its not that I can't count ;-). Please see Special:AbuseFilter/354, I have based this on {{spamsearch}}, and it seems pretty accurate (note: it is only active in user and user_talk space). I have not incorporated all terms yet, but I will do so in the next couple of days. Makes finding the cruft easier. Happy hunting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:40, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Thanks for this. MER-C 10:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Halting massive ongoing violations

[edit]

Please review Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/LouisPhilippeCharles. It appears that while this case is awaiting review the contributor, having been repeatedly notified and yet declining to assist in identifying or cleaning up his problematic contributions as requested, has actually accelerated generation of additional material without regard to its potential violative nature: He has, in the last several days, made hundreds of edits similar to those of which the complaint speaks. They appear to be potentially violative either because they 1. are article moves made in violation of WP procedures, thereby recklessly damaging or destroying article and discussion page histories, 2. populate articles with substantial portions of text that appear to be copyvios, and/or 3. uploaded photos that appear non-compliant with standards for use in WP. Please consider taking immediate steps to assess, prevent and reverse these ongoing abuses. FactStraight (talk) 08:10, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I can't help you on this matter (not an admin). I see that you have spammed this notice over multiple talk pages, please include diffs of fresh copy and paste moves. File:Hall of the Palazzo Chiablese, Turin.jpg and File:Tapestry Room of the Palazzo Chiablese.jpg are almost certain imagevios, but most seem legit. MER-C 08:28, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Maltesers - section in Popular Culture

[edit]

I do not understand why you are removing the links to world records achieved for Maltesers page (blowing with a straw) - this is an interesting item which adds to the page.

I have added a few world records to other pages, including the Champagne page and High Five (where other world records are cited) yet they get deleted - I apologise, but I do not understand what the issue is here!

Rich — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rwap (talk • contribs)

Our records indicate that someone -- 217.43.190.98 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) to be precise -- had his editing privileges temporarily revoked for adding this domain despite warnings. Why do your link additions prominently mention the website and person in question? Furthermore, did you use the preview functionality? MER-C 10:06, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ah - it was me who made the alterations initially without being logged onto Wikipedia under that IP address - although I did not see any warnings - possibly because my IP address changed later in the day or else I am not certain where to look for warnings when making edits?

The links need to mention the name of the person involved, as they are the World Record Holder (surely) although I admit that it is probably better to remove the name of the website, if that is an issue.

I only used the preview functionality once, as once I was happy with the layout, I could replicate it easily enough. I will remove the references to the website name and re-submit the changes if that is acceptable?

Rich

The reference to the website name was because I had based the insertion on the "In popular Culture" section under "High Five" http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/High_five#In_popular_culture - where it refers to

"In January 2010, Canadians Sam Stilson and Craig Morrison of The Record Collection set a world record for "longest high five". Each of them ran toward the other from a distance of 3.3 kilometres (2.1 mi) before meeting for a high five on Yonge Street in Toronto.[12][13] The feat is listed in the Universal Record Database.[14]"

This was the same style I had adopted as it had presumably been accepted previously.

Fair enough. I asked about previewing because some of your edits inserted a "this article has a problem" tag. Wikipedia is abused continually by individuals and businesses for self-promotion and spamdexing, so I hope you will appreciate my role in scrutinizing your edits.
Be aware that these edits may be challenged on the grounds that the site is self-published. The problem with self-published sources is that the author can claim whatever he likes, therefore it's better to provide an independent reference for this. MER-C 12:19, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the issues with self-published sources - unfortunately, you cannot easily link to the record details on the Guinness World Records website, as they do not have permanent links!

This may be helpful. MER-C 05:08, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2

[edit]

Because you participated in Wikipedia talk:What Wikipedia is not/Archive 34#Does WP:NOTMYSPACE apply to secret pages?, you may be interested in Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Secret pages 2. Cunard (talk) 07:03, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Banning Of gCaptain

[edit]

I would like to discuss the blacklisting of our site gCaptain.com. We are very interested in the quality of our links and have no interest in distracting the conversation here at wikipedia. We are all mariners and consider the work you have done to promote maritime issues on wikipedia important. I very much wish to talk with you about the blacklisting. Thanks, John Konrad - coFounder - gCaptain.com --Gcaptain (talk) 20:51, 14 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The proper venue for this is MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals.
Bear in mind that we generally do not remove domains from the blacklist at the request of site owners. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. In particular, you will need to convince us that it is not a link to be avoided or meets our sourcing guidelines (examples). MER-C 05:09, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thank your for the clarification, this is a big help in getting us on the right track. And please accept my apologies on behalf of gCaptain and my assurance that we will take wikipedia's best interests to heart. --Gcaptain (talk) 18:24, 15 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

[edit]

Thanks for the tip, I will try to use it in future. :) Green Giant (talk) 07:03, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelist help

[edit]

I have 2 queries on the whitelist page (one for over a month) and no admin has responded yet to even the status of the requests. Can you take a look at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#eutimes.net and/or MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Currency war? Thanks.Lihaas (talk) 03:53, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I wish I could help you but I am not an administrator, thus I cannot edit the whitelist. MER-C 07:43, 14 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Linksummary

[edit]

As a frequent contributor to wp:wpspam I thought you might find this script useful to add to your monobook. The simple explanation of its use is that if you type "L:SomeDomainName.com" into the regular Wikipedia search box it will take you to a linksearch results page. I created this because when reverting spam I often find myself wanting to run a linksummary link but end up having to create a new section on my talk page or the spammers where I preview a linksummary link.
If you (and the two others who I am notifying about this) agree that its useful to have this I'll ask the original script writer to add it to the existing namespace redirection script.
Let me know what you think.  7  01:59, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is very useful because typing Special:Linksearch/*.example.com in the search box isn't that hard (and is something I am very used to). Sorry.MER-C 12:47, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for trying.  7  13:11, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hello

[edit]

hi..im sorry for disturbing you but for us its really important matter and i guess you can help us..

Well im a global moderator to www.rajattokasworld.com which it became in the spam list recently to wikipedia, actually was wondering how we can make our like save again as in fact its the real official website to the TV Indian star Rajat Tokas, and we have all the proves it needs to present it to u, such as video interview, sound record, or any new prove you want us to present.. im aware of the action of a member which caused to this and we are sorry for this, and i promise you no one from our side will edit the page in such illiterate way anymore... Our only hope that to solve this and make our link in save again.. so im asking your help and guidance us of what we should and have to do..

Thank you in advance — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarah.gkhia (talk • contribs)

"its the real official website" Oh really?

Registrant Contact:
    Whois Privacy Protection Service, Inc.

— Whois [5]

<meta name="keywords" content="rajat,rajat tokas, rajat tokas images, rajat tokas wallpapers, rajat tokas official website, rajat tokas videos, chat with rajat tokas, rajat tokas pics,dharamveer, dharam veer, prithvi,prithviraj, mugdha chaphekar,rajat tokas photoshoot, mugdha, chaphekar,rajat tokas fansite,rajat tokas world,star plus,ekta kapoor,Tere Liye" />

[...]

<script type="text/javascript" src="http://ads.pubmatic.com/AdServer/js/showad.js">

— HTML source of rajattokasworld.com
Please read WP:ELNO, WP:Spam and WP:COI and don't add links to this site again. MER-C 02:11, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
More directly:
1) Why does the owner of this site insist on being anonymous?
2) Why does the site describe itself as a fansite?
3) Why does it have ads on it? (I'm sure Rajat Tokas can afford to pay someone to maintain an ad-free website.) MER-C 07:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

MfD

[edit]

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:WikiProject North Korea (2nd nomination) Hello, this is to invite you to a previously held discussion on MfD that had been closed but was recently revealed to be a vote fraud following the discovery of a big sockfarm operated by that particular individual. Appreciate if you could voice your opinion on this matter there. Best. --Dave ♠♣♥♦™№1185©♪♫® 10:04, 2 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

FilmiTadka is a credible source.

[edit]

Hello,

Today I saw that you have removed almost all of my contributions to wikipedia, just wanted to understand why? First of all FilmiTadka is not a spam, and gets it's news from all the PRs and publicists of various Movie Production houses operating in India, website contains an about us page, which also talks about the founders. It is an investor backed cash rich venture.

However, all of this is secondary, what ridiculed me was that how come other references are considered as credible sources, point in case can be Aakrosh (2010 film) article, go through the page and please enlighten me that how exactly are the referenced destinations are considered as credible?

Anyway, all I wanted to say was that FilmiTadka is a credible source, and if you don't think so, then I will have to respect that as well, but kindly do me a favour and please let me know how can I establish that?


Fanofbollywood (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. I am associated with the website.

"I am associated with the website." → Read WP:COI. In particular, one should not add links/references to sites one is affiliated with, regardless of whether the individual links/references are OK. Most of your edits involve adding links to filmitadka.in. A strong bias towards adding links and/or references to one particular site and having a conflict of interest are indicators that a user may be editing Wikipedia for promotional purposes. See also WP:REFSPAM.
Is it a coincidence that you and Agrawal.ayush (talk · contribs) showed up in the same month with almost exactly the same method of editing?
By the way, one of the things which makes a reliable source is reputation. WHOIS says filmitadka.in has only been around since April and prior to your and Agrawal.ayush's edits, there were no links to filmitadka.in on Wikipedia. MER-C 05:26, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You didn't answer my other question, did you go through Aakrosh (2010 film)? How are websites like apunkachoice.com, fundoonews, etc, are considered credible?

Fanofbollywood (talk) 18:28, 6 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is your edits, not someone else's. The inclusion of a link/reference is not an endorsement of said link/reference. (This follows from the open nature of Wikipedia, there is almost nothing stopping anyone from adding links/references.) Despamming [BT]ollywood articles is an uphill battle. MER-C 02:32, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

You've sent me an email 07:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC) in regards to linking to a different website. Cichlidexplorer is one of the most complete resource of cichlid species including some very rare pictures. The link that was given informas cichlid keepers on how to keep this particular specie. Kbuntu (talk) 07:47, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The "References" section is for references, i.e. the sources of information used specifically in writing the article. It is clear from your contributions that you did not add the links to verify the article content. Additionally, the site appears to be a link to be avoided (#1). MER-C 07:57, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dubious edit

[edit]

Hi MER-C,

Could you please have a look at this edit to Sword please? I can't make up my mind if it's linkspam or not. Not that either of these two facts prove linkspam, but this is the only edit recorded against the IP address in question and both it and the site's registration address are in the same country. Against which the site seems mature and does contain information.

Thanks, Bruce Kiore (talk) 09:14, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Spam is all about promotional intent, so I can't really tell whether the edit constitutes linkspam. The site, however, requires paid registration to view the content and hence runs afoul of WP:EL#REG. MER-C 09:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I've reverted the edit. Kiore (talk) 10:03, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

[edit]

Just wanted to say that I think this was a good idea. :) We probaby couldn't handle a lot more than that, but that was a good way to make sure there was review of this brief list. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 17:28, 14 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

I have come across a Paid Editor Sigma0 1 (talk · contribs) who works for Bluebike Terminologies who has creating articles which fails WP:N ,WP:ORG etc for IdeaConnection and [6] and [7] Do I report the editor to WP:SPAM or to WP:COIN Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:16, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your post will get more attention at WP:COIN. MER-C 12:30, 20 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=User_talk:MER-C/archives/28&oldid=1160097513"