I'm mostly inactive at the moment. If you want a response inside 3-4 days, best to post here and then let me know via email.
I would prefer that any complaints, questions or requests get posted here so that they are visible to the community. --GraemeL (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
I am: OUT
- I will reply here unless you ask me to reply somewhere else.
- If I posted something (other than a warning) to your talk page, I probably added it to my watch list. I would prefer replies in the same page as the original post. However, feel free to reply here if you want.
Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12
66.31.6.101
Hi, 66.31.6.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) is requesting an unblock, claiming that it was his brother who previously vandalized. Can you look into it and make a decision? Thanks. --Nlu (talk) 04:47, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
- I took a look and somebody had already lifted the block. I'm happy enough to leave it unblocked. If whoever is on the IP is not going to vandalise, there is no reason for it to remain blocked. --GraemeL (talk) 00:37, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for September 18th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 38 | 18 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:SIGN |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:42, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
September Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
Signpost updated for September 25th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 39 | 25 September 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 07:56, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Linking to self-written blog
You may want to look into this Strumpette.com link and the IP author who in the past has said that they are the blog's creator. --MyWikiBiz 21:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
GraemeL: The Strumpette addition is NOT an ad or spam. STOP deleting it! Gregory Kohs who told you to do so is a jerk that is just trying to undermine our legitimacy. We are one of the top journals in PR. Our traffic exceeds O'Dwyer's. For further information, you can write me at chapel AT strumpette DOT com.
- You've already been warned three times about linking to your own sites. Since you chose to ignore those warnings, I've blocked you for 24 hours. Continuing to add links to your own site will result in longer blocks. --GraemeL (talk) 22:43, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
- For an impartial comparison of where Strumpette.com traffic stacks up against two of the other externally linked "Criticism" sites on the Public relations article, look here. I've done enough now to point out the problem. I'm going to let Wikipedia admins make any more decisions on their own, without my prompting. If Strumpette.com eventually finds a way to use Wikipedia as a link traffic farm, I'm not going to fight it. (I can really do without "Amanda Chapel" and <probably> Brian Connolly vandalizing my User page.) --MyWikiBiz 03:52, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- They've resorted to using Tor proxies both for spamming their site and for vandalizing your user page. I'm indefinitely blocking the proxies as they use them. Though I am mostly inactive, I'm keeping tabs on both of the pages that they are hitting. Let me know if you want your user page protected from editing by anonymous and new users. --GraemeL (talk) 12:42, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Barnstar
The Anti-Vandalism Barnstar
|
The RickK Anti-Vandalism Barnstar | |
| For GraemeL. You probably have every award going in your voluminous talk page archives, so this is a reminder that the fantastic job you do defending the wiki from spam, vandals, proxies, and all sorts of other nasties, is appreciated. -- Linkspamremover 12:36, 1 October 2006 (UTC) |
- Thanks! I am mostly inactive at the moment, but I an still working on a few individual issues (see thread above this one). --GraemeL (talk) 12:43, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding a link
Hello,
I have a website with 188 skateboarding tricks, is it alright to add the link to the 'skateboarding trick' page? I mean, there are videos and pictures with our trick descriptions, so I think a link would be the best solution.
It's all quality content, this is the link: http://www.how2skate.com/index.php?skate=tricktips
I don't know if I should talk to you about this, but I just want to know if it's alright for me to post this, because I think it would be helpful.
I'm not driven by profit, I spend all the advertisement income on prizes for give-aways and webhosting.
Thanks for your attention.
Strumpette
You have my full support here.--Jimbo Wales 23:48, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks Jimbo. No idea how you found out about this as I can't see anything on your talk page, the admin noticeboards or the mailing list archives. I guess they must have emailed you directly. Looks like Raul654 had the site added to the meta blacklist, so we shouldn't have any further problems. --GraemeL (talk) 00:10, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Sock puppet help
Please can you assist in dealing with a sock puppet of Billybrag in the name of Fraslette. Fraslet 17:40, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Hi Graeme, You pit a block on the above user. would you mind semi protecting the talk page in the short term as well, as the vandal is removing warnings. Cheers muchly Khukri (talk . contribs) 21:33, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
- I didn't actually apply the block, I just applied the template to the talk page to show why the block had been done. Somebody else has already protected the talk page. --GraemeL (talk) 23:07, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 2nd.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 40 | 2 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| New speedy deletion criteria added | News and notes |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | RSS Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Dawnloading
Hi!
I was wondering why you deleted the "Dawnloading"-topic.
I googled my ass off and found the same typo (from where the word came) over and over again, and found nothing resembling a definition of a term. The thing came up about an hour back or so, when I made a typo on the bf2s.com forums.
So, in other words, I just put the word in context as I saw it. And it's good, IMHO.
In wait for your reply,
A. Donner, aka DonFck Finland
- Wikipedia is not a dictonary for new slang terms. See WP:NOT --GraemeL (talk) 12:01, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Moonside Podcast
This content wasn't spam, I don't get why it was deleted.
- Please see the criteria for speedy deletion, specifically A7 and check out Wikipedia:Notability (web). Sorry I forgot to post to your talk page with a template explaining the deletion. --GraemeL (talk) 20:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Really appreciated...
...your spam clean-up in articles. I want to get a feel for that as well so I can do it. What criteria do you use? How do you judge a link to be spam? Thx. --JohJak2 18:00, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
- It's usually either pretty obvious spam or a subjective look at all of the links on an article. The obvious stuff is a single user/IP adding links to the same site across multiple articles (Especially if the site being linked has a high value adword like Mesothelioma). Where there are lots of links, I usually take a look at them all and try to decide if the page being linked to adds to the value of the article. Look out for blogs, forums with less than a few thousand posts and anything with little content and lots of ads.
- Taking a look at the Spam WikiProject might help you get a feel for things. --GraemeL (talk) 19:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Proposed James Dicks deletion
May I ask that you inform user 66.193.232.253 on the proper way to propose a deletion and the issues and policies involved in the article James Dicks? I think I've properly explained it to him on the talk page, but I'd like to be fair. The main issue to me is that he has wanted to use the article as puffery and self-advertisement, and wanted to delete anything - however well documented-- that is critical. Thanks for any help possible. Smallbones 10:18, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
External Linking to Relevant Content
I was linking a click fraud article to a relevant click fraud article on a third-party website. Other Wikipedia editors have the ability to do this on the same page. Why am I advised to stop spamming? The article gives information on how to prevent click fraud on Adwords. http://www.marketingpilgrim.com/2006/10/bob-and-weave-click-fraud-thieves.html
- the link is nothing but low content, high ad ratio spam. Please add content, not external links. --GraemeL (talk) 15:15, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
question about deletion
Hi GraemeL,
I posted some links to sanofi-aventis sites on the sanofi-aventis wikipedia page. You reversed it, and I'm not sure I understand why? I know wikipedia doesn't want advertising, but these were links to the company's Web sites under the company's information page. Please advise.
Thanks!
- Yeah, I should probably have removed them with an edit description instead of rolling back your change. Wikipedia isn't a web brochure for the company. We do link to their corporate page and people can probably find the other sites from there. Some of the links you added may be appropriate on the pages for their individual products (and are probably linked from them already), but I don't think that they should be on the main company page. --GraemeL (talk) 17:47, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
A question following a post you edited
I was wondering if you could help. I notice that you've edited (removed) an external link I added to the page 'secured loan'. Whilst I completely understand the necessity to remove spam from the index the link I added was genuinely designed to expand on the subject of secured loans. This is a confusing area for those looking for additional finance and the link which I added points to an excellent guide written in clear English which helps to demystify secured loans in the UK market. The link was as follows:
- Secured Loan A free easy to understand guide to a Secured Loan in the UK.
The information offered here is equally as valuable to the consumer as that offered through the moneysavingexpert link which remained so I'm not sure why one was deleted and not the other. Would it be possible to re-include the link on the page?
Many Thanks
LineOfSight 20:59, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
- I did look at it before I removed it. there were way too many references to the company that produced it. Their logo is on every page. Too much like an advertisement for my liking. you might want to stick it on the article talk page and ask for further opinions. --GraemeL (talk) 21:03, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Adding Links
Hi GraemeL,
I'm new to Wikipedia, so bare with me...I had the following links deleted http://www.themoneyalert.com/PreventingIdentitytheft.html and http://www.savingforcollege.com/. Both are valuable resources (I'm assuming that's what Wiki's all about) for their subject area , and provided more quality content than any other links on their pages. Please explain, it seems as though it may be an auto thing because they were deleted so fast, it's unlikely the content could have been referenced. Thank you much.
- I did review the content and they were run of the mill spam. Please add content, not external links. --GraemeL (talk) 23:22, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
I thought the links were providing content...Can I cut pieces of the articles to provide on page (assuming I give credit via reference)content? Thanks.
- If you don't own the content, you cannot post it to wikipedia. If you do own the content, then linking to your own sites would be a violation of linking policy. If you find the contents of the sites useful, you can re-write their content in your own words for the article. --GraemeL (talk) 23:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Gotcha, thanks.
how come you deleted the edits made?
Hi,
Did any of the edits contravien any rules? The information added was intended to be useful.
- I reverted out the commercial link that you added. I may have caught previous good edits in the process. I'll have a look and fix any problems. --GraemeL (talk) 13:19, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
sorry, new to this thing.
Listen, I am new to Wikipedia, I saw that there are other commercial links on the wikipedia page for Clinical Trial and posted a link back to a resource I found helpful. Why are some commercial links allowed and others not?
- So many links with so few people to police them. Feel free to remove commercial links when you come across them. The main exception to this being where the article is actually about the company that the link points to. --GraemeL (talk) 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Dairy links
I have added some External Links to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dairy article with what I beleve are related to the content. You keep removing them. What can I do so the these links conform to Wikipedia's usage rules?
- You're showing up out of nowhere and adding over a dozen links to articles. Very few articles need as many as a dozen links and most of the links you added had no encyclopaedic value whatsoever. WP:NOT a web directory. You are probably qualified to add to the content of the articles in question, so please do that instead of dropping dozens of links. --GraemeL (talk) 16:05, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 9th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 41 | 9 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 16:48, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Search Engine Optimization
Greetings,
This morning I ( 68.5.230.173 ) edited the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_engine_optimization#SEO_professionals.27_point_of_view section of the search engine optimization page to include a search engine optimization forum ( http://www.ihelpyou.com/forums/ ) that is an excellent fit for that specific section of that page in wikipedia.
According to the history tab, you then reverted that edit (two minutes later ... you're quick, LOL!).
I'm curious to know why you did that?
Looking forward to your reply,
- Johneblue
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Johneblue
thanks
Sorry, thanks for catching that. It took me a minute to figure out what you meant. The one thing about Lupin's popups is that people catch things so fast that he rolled it back before I had a chance to hit the button!! PS, don't forget to sign your comments :) Laurənwhisper 20:13, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Mr T
I've been trying to add my Mr T site (www.wevegotmrt.com) to the external links section of the Mr T page, as I have previously used information to update the Mr T page, albeit not necessarily on this login as it was some time ago. However, I got a message saying it was not an appropriate link. Weve Got Mr T has a lot of information on Mr T that Wikipedia does not have and I feel the external link is justified in Wikipedia's own external link guideline. Can you please get back to me with information on why the site cannot be included on external links when, for example, Obsessed with wrestling profile can?
Regards, Ian Copeland
I noticed you added the section >The term "blog" is a contraction of "Web log."
Since when is this true? Blog has always been known in the intenet circle as "Babbling Log"
I was going to change the blog wiki page but felt it's best to talk this through :)
Please cite your source for this definition of the word blog.
-Ryan Pavely wparadox@nac.net Director Research And Development Net Access Corporation
Domaining links?
It seems you removed the external links for the Domaining article. Since this article is about one of the most Web-related topics around, don't you think leaving the external links would make sense? I frequently used the page as a means of accessing my favourite domain tools, as I am a domainer myself.
Question about removal
Hi Graeme,
I added a link (www.sports-arbitrage.info) to the "Arbitrage" and "Arbitrage Betting" External Links sections but you removed them whilst leaving links to a similar site. I'm just wondering why one was removed but not the other. Both sites show contextual ads, so I can't see much difference. I wanted to find out if there's a problem with the site that I added, rather than just add it again if it would be removed in future.
Cheers.
- Edit - Shwapnil, please post your own message instead of adding on to mine, as it looks as if your comments were posted me. :)
Request to review the links
GraemeL,
A few days back I added few external link to the Data Mining article. I completely respect your negative attitude towards adding links. But, with due respect, I would like to mention- you should have checked the links before just blindly remove them all. I can guarantee that some of your existing links are way much weaker in contents than what I added.
KDnuggets.com: Anyone who is related to data mining field is very familiar with KDNuggets.com . It is like THE PLACE everyone visits regarding Data Mining. Instead you have datashaping.com (which has bunch of broken links in different pages) mentioning as the Data Mining Directory. I request you to compare the contents of the 2 sites and add Kdnuggets.com as the data mining directory
www.abbottanalytics.com/data-mining-resources.php: This is definitely a wonderful site for data mining resources like book names, papers etc.
www.bluehawk.biz/services.html: This is a great site with easy description of many applications of datamining.
www.twocrows.com/intro-dm.pdf : It has a wonderful datamining booklet.
So, I would request you again to view the sites and assess the value of them compared to the current links you have.
Thanks in advance,
shwapnil
Hello I've noticed you've previously blocked Alphabetagamnma for "Continuing to upload images with invalid claims of release for any purpose". I just thought I'd report this image to you uploaded by him/her. It has an invalid claim, so I tagged it for speedy deletion. I'm not sure if I went about this the right way. - King Ivan 
09:15, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for catching it. I've changed the image tags to no-source and recategorised it to speedy delete again. You can tag images with no source information with {{subst:nsd}} and then add the speedy delete template shown in the box added by the no-source template. I blocked the user for a week and gave him a final warning. His actions can cause legal problems for the foundation. --GraemeL (talk) 11:27, 16 October 2006 (UTC)
www.whatsmydns.com
Just wondering why www.whatsmydns.com has been removed by yourself from the DNS wiki entry as it is a non profit-making useful DNS related tool.
Question
GraemeL I completely agree with you on link spam but I have a question as to why somone feels it is ok to post an article with Google ads, yahoo ads or other ads and this is considered ok, but a site ,commercial post a good article linked to article it is considerd as spam.
Selling hits sponsered aids is a commercial as you can get besides it's a billion dollar business. I am all for getting rid of spam but were do you draw the line with all the sponsered links.--Cleanupman 01:42, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
- Mostly you need to look at the amount of information on the page linked to and the history of the person that added the links. If the user adding the links is not contributing anything but links, then it's obvious spam. Otherwise, it's mostly a judgement call. You need to weigh the value of the content against the ads on the page. Look out for sites with only a couple of paragraphs of text on each page on high value adword pages. There are plenty of good sources out there that happen to include Google ads. There are also lots of spammers out there trying to make a buck from Wikipedia links. --GraemeL (talk) 11:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Context
You left me a warning. I have been contributing for many moons, please provide context to the warning? 202.54.243.13
Re' Your Continual Removal of My links on Pages I Wrote:
Please refer to link Guidelines:
"What should be linked to
Sites that contain neutral and accurate material not already in the article. Ideally this content should be integrated into the Wikipedia article, then the link would remain as a reference, but in some cases this is not possible for copyright reasons or because the site has a level of detail which is inappropriate for the Wikipedia article.
Sites that have been used as references in the creation of an article should be linked to in a references section, not in external links. See Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Citing sources. Sources available in both web and print editions should have a citation for the print edition as well as a link. What should be linked to."
I wrote the page luxury yachts and many others based on material gained from the website CharterWorld. That site is a legitimate external reference which adds hundreds of pages of accurate material not in the articles and not elsewhere on the web, pursuant to the points above. Accordingly I am now using the reference system to refer to sources.
I expect you are removing the link and accusing me of spam in good faith but perhaps you would like to reconsider your position. I know there are many spammy links on this page but charterworld NOT one of them.
I am very mindful that you are bias in removing links viewing 'Cristina O and Floridian' on list of motor yachts by length to charterworld pages and replacing them with nothing. These links are far superior to the monacoeye ones and I can ONLY ASSUME you have an affiliation with that website or you are not reviewing the links you remove???
I await your reply. --Turtleflipper
- Charterworld is a commercial site and is not appropriate for external links. It is also not a reliable source for inclusion in references. If you continue to spam links to it, you will only end up being blocked. --GraemeL (talk) 10:59, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Well having read all the guidlines I believe your position to be very marginal in this case. Nevertheless in the interest of consistency I am going to ensure your position is consistently applied and all external commercial links are removed from these pages, not just those of http://www.charterworld.com/ --Turtleflipper
- That's fine. If I miss any commercial links, it's not by design. Feel free to remove them. --GraemeL (talk) 10:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
What wrong?
HI!
I added external link here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domain_name_system You deleted it. Why?
What I made wrong? What should I change?
Thanks!
- Firstly, the white papers require a login to view and that is not compatible with the Wikipedia linking policy. Secondly, you've already tried to use Wikipedia several times to advertise the particular company that owns the site that you are attempting to link to. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for you to promote your products. --GraemeL (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 16th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 42 | 16 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 17:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
Did you read the article before deleting the link?
Did you read the articles before deleting the links? Both articles on www.itoctopus.com are clean, they are based on experience, and I think they're really helpful. Additionnally, in case you didn't notice, itoctopus doesn't use any form of pay-per-click.
Thank you!
some explanation of deleted links on captcha
It had been decided in the discussion section that no implementation links were to be included in the 'external links' section. I removed some implementations that had since been added - what's wrong with that?. I put in a comment in the ext-links section to explain what I was doing and why. --user24 (not logged in)
- My mistake. I read the diff incorrectly. I've reverted my revert and removed the warning. Sorry for the inconvenience. --GraemeL (talk) 21:23, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thanks for getting on this so quickly --User:user24 a few minutes later
Intellectual Property links
why did you remove ip-links.de? it seems like a legit site, and a useful resource..
- The user was spamming it across every article remotely related to IP, so I reverted all of his edits. If you think it was useful, I have no problem with you adding the link. --GraemeL (talk) 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
- I see. fair enough. --User24 14:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Photography
What was the problem with http://bluephotographie.com/galerie ?
It's an aerial photography gallery
- You were spamming it across multiple articles. Please add content, not external links. --GraemeL (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
link
Dear GraemeL, I want add a link (www.sonverre.be), but you del it. I read the explain you left to me. www.sonverre.be is my own website and it only show my beerglasses collection; that's not a commercial website. A lot of website talk about beer, as your page. But I think that when we talk about beer we have to talk about beer glasses. Best regards. Sébastien
Test
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Germany&diff=next&oldid=83232177 regarding this edit could you also please add the {{test}} in the future? Thanks, Wissahickon Creek talk 19:34, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 23rd.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 43 | 23 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
| Report from the Finnish Wikipedia | News and notes: Donation currencies added, milestones |
| Wikipedia in the news | Features and admins |
| The Report on Lengthy Litigation |
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:21, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
I added few links today. I understand that some of them were commercial, but I think that
these extarnal links have the same description:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_beach
Sunnybeach
http://www.sunnybeach.com SunnyBeach-bg.com Sunny Beach — guide, hotels, properties Sunny Beach, Bulgaria, travel guide Hotels in Sunny Beach Sunny Beach Properties Properties in Sunny Beach Coastal properties Sunny Beach resort Guide Property In Sunny Beach Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunny_Beach"
Could you lease advice how to put the link I think that is proper for that page without any problems after that?
Regards, Nikolay
- I took a look at the links already on the page. Apart from the official site, they were all spam and have now been removed. All of the links that you added were commercial and are totally unsuitable for inclusion. Please add content, not external links. --GraemeL (talk) 17:30, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
66.193.5.99
I noticed you blocked User:66.193.5.99 for 31 hours for vandalizing just one page (in the last day). Since as stated on the talk page, this is a school IP (shared by some 800 people), I'm curious as to why you thought such a long block was warranted. ~~ N (t/c) 18:59, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
- The IP has had many warnings and had six previous blocks. I don't feel that 31 hours was excessive. Though, I should have made it a soft block. A hard block was definitely a mistake for a shared IP. --GraemeL (talk) 19:14, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
Greetings, GraemeL! I have noticed that you have removed the links from Comparison of one-click hosters, and called them 'spam'. However, these links are not spam (in my eyes at least), but references, as the information contained within the table is derived directly from these links. Now, as per Wikipedia:Verifiability, the fact that the included information is the truth is irrelevant, as the information contained within must be verifiable to a user using external links, which are references or sources.
As such, I have recently verified that an edit made to the MiHD entry in the table was indeed incorrect by visiting the link contained in an old revision of the article (2048 MB is the maximum allowed, not 1111MB). Without these links, either the user would have to go to Google and input a search string of the hosting service, and then confirm the data within, or if the links were present, they could confirm that information with a single click. In addition, the Wikipedia spam guideline, states that links may be included if cited text is included, which the information within is (here, number two). As such, I have recently recompiled all of the edits that added or updated information in the table since you deleted the link column, and have since reposted it. Furthermore, might I suggest discussing major edits to an article on its talk page so that a consensus can be reached, and so that other editors might understand why a significant portion of the article is missing?
To sum up, I am not trying to criticize you for your edit, and I commend you for striving to make Wikipedia an even better resource. However, just because external links are present, it does not mean they are spam. Thank you for your time, and have a pleasant day. --Kyra~(talk) 02:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
- The services linked in the article are almost all red links and are all commercial services. Linking to commercial services is only permitted if the article is about the specific company. Please do not add the spam links back to the article. The links serve as nothing more than advertising for the companies in the list, all but three have no Wikipedia article of their own. --GraemeL (talk) 10:32, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I am sorry for my indecent additive in stub thank you and good bye.
IDN Section
The IDN section You keep deleting links in the IDN section but my site IDN Forums is currently the largest resource for IDN Domains in English. Even some of the articles you didn't delete get their information from research done at the site. It's not Spam. It's listed in DMOZ If you read the article from Circle ID they actually credit the info from my site. So could you stop deleting it?
- It's a small forum with few posts. Most of your edits have been adding it to the article. Stop spamming it. --GraemeL (talk) 15:39, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
45,000 Posts in one year to increase the knowledge about IDNs in English & it's a small forum & Spam right?
Did you actually look at it?
http://www.idnforums.com/forums/
- You've admitted that it's your own site and posting links to your own site is considered spamming here. --GraemeL (talk) 17:37, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for October 30th.
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 44 | 30 October 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:16, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
Spamming? Please explain yourself.
What you on about? I haven't spammed anything...
I was given an explanation by Shanes about his 'decision' to remove my blog link, I only posted it because there was ALREADY a blog on the page. Furthermore, as I have pointed out, Wiki has other football blogs listed elsewhere (your decision is inconsistent) and my football blog has received critical acclaim unlike many others. Wiki lists fan sites, so why not list good football blogs because there is no difference.
IT seems threatening to ban people is easier than offering full explanations.
November Esperanza Newsletter
|
|
|
Signpost updated for November 6th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 45 | 6 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
RE: Autocast Article
I note that you have once again removed the entire External Links section from this article. Could you please clarify what kinds of external links *are* permissible in a Wikipedia Article, given that the Wikipedia article on Wikipedia itself contains a large number of external links? If the purpose of Wikipedia is to serve as a reference, surely an article on a subject which by definition is related to the conversion of text to speech using software, should reference examples of software for performing said conversion that falls within the definition and scope of the article?
May I humbly suggest that if discussion with other topic experts is required to -add- a link to Wikipedia under its guidelines, you might also consider discussing the deletion of all links with that same community, prior to taking unilateral action? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mlearning (talk • contribs) Mlearning.
- Listing examples of software does nothing but encourage spamming and violates WP:NOT a web directory. If you want to link to a web directory category (such as Dmoz) then that would be an acceptable link. Once articles start linking to individual software products, they accrue large lists over time.
- The article on Wikipedia itself has a large, yet apparently good list of external links. It links to Wikimedia Foundation pages, news and scholarly articles on the project. If somebody started adding a list of external links to similar projects, then those would be removed. --GraemeL (talk) 14:29, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
Spamstar!
You may have gotten barnstars before, but how about:
|
The Spamstar of Glory | |
| Presented to GraemeL for diligence in fighting spam on Wikipedia. --AbsolutDan (talk) 03:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC) |
- Anytime! --AbsolutDan (talk) 05:27, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
Link to blog in saarang article
Please read the discussion page of the article "saarang" for a note on the official blog. Please leave a reply there.
hi
why do u delete my link. its not spam. better than other url
Signpost updated for November 13th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 46 | 13 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:08, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Pantone page
I am sorry for posting link multiple times. I did not see the talk notes until today. I think that the link I added was relevant, but I understand your concerns. Thanks.
Removal of list of chastity belt manufacturers
Hi - just to let you know, I reverted your edit that removed all the manufacturer links from Chastity belt - although people occasionally do add 'spam' links to this section, the collection of links there as a whole is a legitimate capturing of the current set of CB manufacturers so I don't think it constitutes 'spam' and I think has a legitimate place on Wiki - happy to discuss if you like --Mortice 23:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
- Links to manufacturers are commercial links and not appropriate in anything apart from articles on the individual companies. they serve as nothing more than promotion. If you can find a site that provides a directory of manufacturers, that would be a good alternative. --GraemeL (talk) 00:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, yes, after having consulted Wikipedia:External links I think you're right. And the other sites that the page links to all have references to the device manufactuers already --Mortice 21:22, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
It's just a slight bit more subtle than the usual advert in Wikipedia, but may I ask you to look at Robert Prechter and the associated Socionomics. Bob's a stock-picker with a terrible record, and a glowing Wikipedia article (previously taken straight from his own web site). For some reason, I can't insert any documentation of his terrible stock picking record (from WSJ, Business Week, Esquire, etc., but they did let in the Fortune quote). Smallbones 19:27, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 20th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 47 | 20 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 06:31, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
PanoTools Group
PLEASE do not NOT remove the PanoTools group site link. This is the primary resource in the search engines and has been around since 2003. Why are your removing links to pages your not associated with? John Spikowski 00:53, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
The PanoTools group is not a commercial venture. Please refrain from remove our group link. John Spikowski 21:05, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, I reverted your change as you added commercial links to the page. I've left the link to the panotools.info site in there now, but I removed the rest of the links again. I posted to the talk page explaining the policies that they violate. --GraemeL (talk) 21:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
You were warned by the wiki sysop "Roguegeek" not to change the PanoTools.Info link. Did you not read your own talk page. PanoTools is NOT a commercial venture but the PanoTools group site since 2003. I don't know how to make this any clearer to you. John Spikowski 02:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- PanoTools.Info is more a Scraper_site because it steals content from several sources like [1] or [2] removes all references and makes the author to "John Spikowski" the only person in the "PanoTools Group" [3] to generated money from AdSense. Roguegeek is not an Administrator as you may have already noticed. John Spikowski is playing this games already for 3 month now. Please help! --Wuz 16:06, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- Looks like you are correct. The wiki on the .info site seems to be a copyright violation. As such, including it as an external link is against Wikipedia linking policy. I posted to the article talk page again with a warning that I will end up blocking people (I am a admin) if they continue to post the link without the copyright situation of the site's content being corrected.
Did you not read anything I wrote to you? I will take this up with Brion Vibber (head MediaWiki Developer) and see if he can get you to stop this unfair treatment. It is obvious that you favor NG (are you a member?) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Spikowski (talk • contribs) .
- I don't read the newsgroup and I haven't even used PanoTools in several years. All that I am concerned with is you attempting to use Wikipedia to promote your own web site. As you ignored my last warning, I have blocked you for 24 hours. Please do not add the link again after the block expires. --GraemeL (talk) 19:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
THANK YOU !!! - I will only add the simple PanoTools group site link. (unlink NG that has 4 but could reach all of them from their home page just like I do)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by John Spikowski (talk • contribs) .
- As you can easy check the .info site still violates the copyright [4] and [5]. This article is written by me and John simple removed the author. Just a link to GNU FDL doesn't help much. There is no page on the whole .info wiki that is not written by "John Spikowski" so this should make you wonder. I have no problem with AdSense but the content is simple stolen and he is not willing to give credit to the original author. Also the whole mailing list is not originally from his site. He copies the emails from the Yahoo website, removes all references to the original source and make them to appear from his site. Just compare [6] and [7]. Also the argument .info is older doesn't hold as a look on web.archive.org [8] shows. The first entries are from April 2001. I still strongly belief that Wikipedia should not support such behavior and directing users to this site. Sure you don't need to belief me but please ask John for some evidence (expect that he knows Brian and will call him which is a WP:PAIN and he used this also against me [9] (and I can still edit :)) and also with Tnikkel [10]) of his arguments (like the .org wiki is and illegal copy). If you really like to know what he did with the PanoTools the short summary at [11] may interest you. You can also read Johns version at [12] but again this is the version told by one person without any references. I hope you can put this long sad story to an end. Thx for your help. --Wuz 00:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
3RR
You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from editing. Roguegeek (talk) 19:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
- He's spamming his link and spamming is considered simple vandalism. Reverting vandalism is not subject to the 3RR. --GraemeL (talk) 19:35, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
The copyright situation of panotools.info is still a problem on Panorama Tools. The situation doesn't change with adding one GFDL button as John Spikowski claims: "I have added the license to the footer as you have asked" is only half of the truth when we compare one article as an example: several editors edited [13] while User:John Spikowski seems to have managed all of this with one single update but forgot to mention the real contributors on [14]. The wiki at panotool.info doesn't reveal editors on the Recent Changes page. --Einemnet 23:13, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
If I understand correctly the GFDL requires to preserve the complete history (paragraph 2.I.). Furthermore John violates the copyright of all PanotoolsNG yahoo group mailing list members on panotools.info. He maintains an "archive" where he uses to comment, delete or strip down original posts to his liking and where he states that the author is a member of his "panotools group".
In fact this "archive" is mixed up of several lists without the possibility to tell which post origins from which list and without the possibility to reply to the original list (replies go to his list only). He is not even a member of the yahoo mailing list and he was banned from the list.
His own own contributions to his page are mostly limited to fighting against panotoolsNG and wild accusation that the list and the wiki had be stolen from him. If you are interested in the incidents which led to that situation, please read the panotools list history. This also sheds some light on Mr. Spikowski...
--Erik Krause 20:02, 25 November 2006 (UTC) (PanotoolsNG Mailing List moderator and panotools.org wiki sysop)
Erik and the other NG self appointed moderators for some reason have the notion that the PanoTools group is one person. There are over 100 members in the annoucement list and 22 new members on the forum we just got going after switching to this format. The site is getting 2000+ site visits a day and is the primary resource in the major search engines with over 25K pages indexed. (the NG group isn't even on the map)
Can you change the NG link to point to their group site (like the PanoTools link does) and remove all then un-needed others?
I have sent many e-mails to the NG moderators trying to come to some agreement so the fighting will stop but they only respond when 'on stage' here on the Wikipedia. I feel the NG moderator that post here should be ban till they stop all this nonsense. John Spikowski 22:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
The NG moderators are deleting the PanoTools group link again. Can you ban them for a while so they stop? John Spikowski 04:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Is there anything you can do to stop the NG moderators from removing the PanoTools link from the page? Any help would be apreciated. John Spikowski 19:20, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Thomas has broken the 3 revert rule and should be ban for 24 hours. Can you revert the page back to it's original state? Thanks ! John Spikowski 20:00, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
Ok, I guess the PanoTools issue is solved for now see [15], Thx for your help! --Wuz 00:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for November 27th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 48 | 27 November 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 01:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
Signpost updated for December 4th.
|
|---|
|
| ||
| Volume 2, Issue 49 | 4 December 2006 | About the Signpost |
|
| ||
|
| |
| Home | Archives | Newsroom | Tip Line | Single-Page View | Shortcut : WP:POST |
|
| |
You are receiving this message because you have signed up for the Signpost spamlist. If you wish to stop receiving these messages, simply remove your name from the list. Ralbot 05:37, 5 December 2006 (UTC)