Wikipedia talk:Spam

affiliate or referal codes

It would be nice if these terms were define. Also, do advertisement links count? PDBailey (talk) 20:27, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

This question regards, [1]. PDBailey (talk) 18:07, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

www.andhranews.net

Wy is this site on the blacklist? It seems a perfectly acceptable news source for local and national news; their coverage of international news-- which I can judge better --seems comparable to other good news sources. DGG (talk) 22:20, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Torrent links to public domain content

Discussion how to put torrent links to public domain content if there is an advertisement also or if to do so. Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#The Pirate Bay... (and related). Results should be written into this guideline. --Snek01 (talk) 05:47, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Promotional usernames

There is a debate going on as to if we should allow usernames that are the names of companies. ie: User:Northwest Investment Firm. Since this seems to fall under the category of spam I am adding this link here: Wikipedia_talk:Username_policy#Disagree_with_change Chillum 15:37, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Seeking professional help?

Do those whose Wikipedia edits are concerned mainly with getting rid of spam ever seek assistance of the kind referred to here? Are there policies saying they should seek such help? If not, maybe there should be. Michael Hardy (talk) 16:50, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Many users, including myself, fully support MrOllie's spam-removal efforts, especially in obvious cases of conflict-of-interest. Your suggestion could be construed as a personal attack. If you disagree with the removal of a link, discuss it on the article page and refrain from making veiled insults toward other editors. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 17:06, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

Why would it be a personal attack? The article's talk page is not the appropriate place when it's about dozens of articles rather than just one. Furthermore, it proposes emendations to the policy on linkspam, so this present talk page is absolutely the right place for it. Why is a proposed policy change a "personal attack"? Michael Hardy (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

I also spend some time removing linkspam. Look at the problem this way: There are a zillion web sites with owners that want to promote their site. Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and is one of the world's most popular sites. The result is that many sites owners go to a lot of trouble to look for places to inject their message into Wikipedia. If MrOllie and cohorts stopped removing spamlinks, WP would become a giant link farm. I see single purpose accounts (users who do almost nothing other than add links to a particular site) who add fake references: they go to an existing article where they have never edited, they find a likely sentence, and they add a properly-formatted ref to some page on their site. They don't make any change to the article (in fact they almost never change articles except to add links). You have to be brutal to combat that kind of link spammer. And if you don't fight the people who just add external links, many of them will start adding links within articles as well (why wouldn't they? they have no desire to improve the article; they just want to promote their site).

I've been removing linkspam for just a few weeks and already I have seen several cases where some determined opposition results in the spammer giving up and going elsewhere (LinkSearch can be used to verify that the links do not recur).

In an ideal world, one would spend 10 minutes verifying that each suspect link really deserved to be removed, and one might even ask for feedback (I recently did that). However, in practice it is impossible, and the balance is wrong: the spammer can add another dozen links in the time it might take to check one.

There should be better guidelines, but clearly any editor is able to revert spam link removal, and those removing spam would happily accept the judgement of an established editor if they use an edit summary indicating that they have checked the link and feel it should be added.

I heard a comment (sorry, have forgotten where) pointing out that if all editors stopped improving articles, Wikipedia would still be a valuable resource for decades. However, if vandal and spam fighters stopped for a couple of months, Wikipedia would be an unusable mess. That is, article improvement is the most important activity, but cleaning up is vital as well. Johnuniq (talk) 10:48, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Michael, you also raised this issue at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#Seeking expert help to judge suspected spam (permanent link); I have responded to you there. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:11, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Redirect question

If a particular restaurant's name, National Coney Island redirects to Coney Island (restaurant), shouldn't there be a link to the restarant's homepage on the redirected page? 96.27.38.63 (talk) 00:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Not necesarily. Ask User:Mhking who created the redirect. I suspect that someone tried to add a National Coney Island article at one time and the article was deleted as spam or non-notable. After the deletion, User:Mhking created a redirect. Don't assume that there is some special status to the firm in question. TastyPoutine ^{talk (if you dare)} 00:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

In a nutshell...

Can someone please write an appropriate {{nutshell}} for this guideline? Thanks. -- œ^™ 21:19, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Is this spam?

[2] ? --84.44.177.125 (talk) 12:21, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

It's probably ok because the site seems reasonable, and the few articles and links I checked seemed fine. There are 151 links now (if it keeps rising, that might suggest spam). One might wonder whether all the articles concern notable athletes (I have no idea) but I would say ok. Johnuniq (talk) 23:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Spam: is this a good word to use?

Reading some very good comments at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Mojo-hustla led me to think carefully about the way we refer to "spam" in Wikipedia, and I found I was not happy about it. I myself have in the past tended to use the word "spam" rather freely in edit summaries, but I now think this is a mistake. There are many people who run perfectly respectful businesses, and would not dream of using spam in the real world, who come to Wikipedia, and, with the best of intentions, place publicity material here. Of course this reflects a failure to understand the nature of Wikipedia, but they are doing nothing which would be regarded as reprehensible in normal business practice. And what happens? They find themselves labelled as spammers. This does not give them a friendly welcome to Wikipedia, it does not assume good faith, and by seeming like an aggressive accusation it is not likely to encourrage them to take a cooperative line. I wonder whether the word "spam" should be removed altogether from Wikipedia: {{db-spam}} could perhaps be replaced with something like db-promo. Likewise Wikipedia:Spam could be Wikipedia:PROMO, which at present is a redirect to a section of Wikipedia:Spam.

I am also posting this comment to the CSD talk page, but I suggest any response should be made here, to avoid duplicate discussions. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:32, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. - Dank (push to talk) 19:33, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I boldly created {{db-promo}} as a copy of db-spam (they both redirect to db-g11); it's not likely to be misunderstood. - Dank (push to talk) 19:38, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I have copied the following comment from the CSD talk page, in accordance with my suggestion above.

I agree. Henceforward we should write all edit summaries in Newspeak to avoid harming the fragile self-esteem of our valued spammer community. Doubleplusgood suggestion. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:40, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Apart from the question of WP:CIVIL, I think that comment fails to appreciate two facts which I tried to convey: (1) It is not aimed at the "spammer community": it is aimed at people who are not spammers, but make good faith edits which they do not realise are contrary to accepted Wikipedia practice: as for out-and-out spammers, it won't make the slightest difference whether we are friendly or unfriendly to them, as they won't take any notice either way. (2) It is not about avoiding harming anyone's "fragile self-esteem": it is about not unnecessarily antagonising people: it is in our own interest not to do so. A further point is that we were all new to Wikipedia once, and how many of us who have been around for a while did not, at first, make good faith edits which we would now realise were unacceptable? JamesBWatson (talk) 19:59, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Conversations about spam often devolve into accusations of born-yesterdayness on the one hand and gross violations of AGF on the other, but in my experience, few of the people who actually do the work (taggers and admins) are either gullible or mean. I think the communication problems have more to do with trying to craft a single message that is intended to be ideal for every audience: admins, taggers, unrepentant spammers (in the true sense, that is, people who overload you with something you don't want, ad nauseum), and first-time contributors. Different messages are needed for different groups. - Dank (push to talk) 20:24, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

More seriously, this new {{db-promo}} synonym appears to be targeted at new contributors who show enough signs of good faith that we should encourage them to contribute more positively rather than showing them the door. If someone is a true spammer, why should we care whether they're insulted by being called a spammer? But if someone is a borderline case, a little self-promoting but not really blatant about it, why are we using speedy tags at all? Shouldn't {{db-spam}} and its synonyms be reserved only for what is blatantly spam? I wonder whether adding a kindler, gentler synonym isn't going to have the effect of encouraging speedy patrollers to use the tag too liberally. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I fully see what you mean, though I don't understand why you think it is more serious than the previous points. However, the criteria for speedy deletion apply only to those reasons for deletion where it is felt that it is necessary to delete the page immediately, and I think that is dependent on the content, not on the intentions of the author. Thus if a completely unacceptable piece of promotion is included, it should be deleted immediately whether or not it was put there in good (but misguided) faith, so I don't agree with "why are we using speedy tags at all?". As for encouraging speedy patrollers to use the tag too liberally, I think anyone with a reasonable amount of experience of CSD knows already that "spam" refers to any inappropriate promotion, not only what would be called "spam" in the outside world, so I don't think it is likely to make much difference. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

In answer to Dank's last comment: Yes, there is a good deal of truth in that. "Different messages are needed for different groups" reflects exactly what we try to do in some situations: for example a tagger may place a {{w-spam1}} tag, but what the possible spammer sees is a message which does not mention spam at all. Likewise {{w-spam2}} mentions spam only very tangentially: it is only when we get to level 3 that we start accusing editors to their face of spamming. This is all very well, but in practice an editor who sees such a template message on their user page is quite likely to discover that the tag for the template calls it "spam". In the same way the relevant speedy delete template suggests that the tagged page "does nothing but promote some entity", which is much more general than "spam": so why do we call the criterion "spam"? "Promotion" would be much more appropriate. And if we were to drop the word "spam" in favour of "promotion" would it really make any difference to those editors who accuse such as me of "born-yesterdayness" or of wishing to "avoid harming the fragile self-esteem of our valued spammer community"? I think they would use {{w-promo2}} and {{db-promo}} just as happily as they now use {{w-spam2}} and {{db-spam}}. I actually think that the present wording of the various template messages does a very good job of using the S-word only where it is justified (assuming, of course, that the tags are used intelligently). On the other hand generally making less use of the S-word in our policies and guidelines would make editors less likely to use the word freely elsewhere. I for example remember writing an edit summary in some such terms as "deleting spam link", and thereby making an inexperienced user quite angry and obstructive. It is possible that a more diplomatic choice of words would have elicited a more constructive response, and if not, what would I have lost? I could still introduce the rude word once the editor had shown that they were going to be uncooperative anyway. There is nothing original about that: it is the well-worn principal that we Assume Good Faith until the user gives evidence of the contrary. However, the point I am trying to make is that such mistakes as the one I made would be less frequent if our policies etc avoided using the word as a generic term for any inappropriate promotion, and used it only where spam is really what is meant, because it would discourage us from thinking of the word as the generic one to use. JamesBWatson (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Why do you expect editors to know or care which substituted template was used to warn them? You do subst your warning templates, right? —David Eppstein (talk) 23:15, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, whether I subst templates or not is irrelevant, as many editors don't. Secondly, a {{db-spam}} results in a message which, in editing mode, contains the text [[Category:Spam pages for speedy deletion]]. Anyway, I don't think that alters overall thrust of what I have tried to convey. As for "care", I thought I had explained that. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Most CSD taggers use either Twinkle or Huggle, so re-naming won't accomplish much unless you get the custodians of those tools to change which tag they use. (don't expect a sympathetic ear on the Huggle talk page) Beeblebrox (talk) 23:01, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

No, and to drastically reduce the amount of inappropriate use of the word "spam" is probably not realistically likely, at least not unless it happens gradually over the course of years, and I have no intention of running a prolonged campaign. However, if there is a significant amount of support for the general thrust of my position then it should be feasible to make some changes. Anyway, the wording of the tags is not the most important point since, as I have already indicated, it often differs drastically from what is displayed. JamesBWatson (talk) 00:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• A simple way to put things is to avoid ALL auto-promotion (+friend promotion). I've use this as a guideline for a group of mine and it works well. Simplifies the problem. Of course it's not perfect but it's clear limit to understand, hence easy for users to follow. Even for citing I'd advise them to use anything other than theirs, if they don't find any they can discuss it. The simple thing to ask one self is “Who benefits?”... Applying this may sound extreme, Wikipedia may lose some contributors but those that stay will be the best ones. =) － Cy21(talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Darwin Information Typing Architecture article

Hi, A few days ago I put a comment at Talk:Darwin Information Typing Architecture about product mentions and inappropriate external links in the article, but haven't gotten a response there. I'd removed some product names already and was reverted. Could an uninvolved person please take a look? Should only take a few minutes. Cheers, Walk Up Trees (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied there, and will watch and join in soon. Johnuniq (talk) 02:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Spam, COI, good faith and mistakes

I hope this is the right place for this. Dispute resolution seems too formal and escalatory, but I need a third opinion. I am in a dispute over the understanding of spam, COI and what to do about them. with an admin who is apparently getting close to blocking a user for spamming, even though I think the user was honestly ignorant of policy and was adding material that was very useful.

• The user is affiliated to an academic religious research centre with associations to Macquarie University in Australia, and the links to interviews done by that centre are excellent RS interviews with established religious experts, or they are life-overview interviews with the topics of the BLP articles they were linked to. But clearly there is a COI issue to be dealt with.
• S/he added these links from the centre's site to different articles (each link, by itself, a perfectly appropriate on-topic RS) all in one go, giving the appearance of spam. These were taken down, but I put them back up again as each was entirely appropriate as a link - I actually came across the problem because the link added to a page I was working on was mana from Heaven - a respected academic analysing fringe theories of Christianity. I do not dispute the reasonableness of the original reverts - it certainly looked like spamming. I should point out that the links no more promote the centre than the beginning of a CBS news bulletin mentions CBS.
• Someone else has previously linked to the site material that was essentially spam (opinions of the centre's head on books and films), which understandably raises a few spam alarm bells.
• The user (someone not very active) had received a warning for adding inappropriately promotional material seven months ago.

So there are spam and COI issues, but the user, after being warned for spamming, has responded and apologised, pleaded (I believe genuine) ignorance asked for help with how to address COI issues, accepting that COI may mean s/he cannot put those kinds of links up. I have been trying to give that help, and there is every evidence that they are keen to contribute, within rules. Unfortunately, the admin who originally removed the links keeps reminding the user that s/he will be blocked if she continues to spam, and has accused me of encouraging spamming. In my eyes, the admin refuses genuinely to discuss any of the issues (just insisting it's all spam) while seeing no reason to look at any of the material added, despite being alerted that the links may not be spam), and has a very strong reading of WP:SPAM and WP:COI that in my eyes is not justified by policy - something I have been trying to explain. The user talk page is here and the appropriate section of the admin's talk page is here.

Is my reading of the spam rules and the appropriacy of the admin's postings all awry? I've come here to get a third opinion because I don't see the discussion going anywhere without it, and I'm struggling to remain civil. I should point out that I am an atheist (see my user page) with certainly no motivation to support a religious organisation per se. My motivation is to help new users learn how to contribute better, and how to solve COI problems that obstruct good sourcing getting onto wikipedia. Apologies if this is the wrong place to post this message.VsevolodKrolikov (talk) 04:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Spam in userspace

Some admins are reluctant to delete spam user(talk) pages on the grounds that it doesn't show up in internet searches and that it is in the userspace (even though G11 applies to all pages). I was keeping an eye on this which had the speedy declined (because it appeared to be a sandbox – fair enough, no arguments there), but I've also been keeping an eye on this too, and today it showed up (fifth entry down). So, userpages do show up on internet searches (even subpages; admittedly, it took a few days), just in case you didn't know. ;) And I will carry on dealing with them. :) – B.hotep •talk• 16:27, 19 August 2009 (UTC) Additional note – obviously, as time goes by, that Google link will drop down the page rank (it's now down two to seventh). – B.hotep •talk• 11:52, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I am glad you have raised this, as it is something I have been concerned with for some time. There seems to be a very widespread view that almost anything can be accepted as long as it is "only" in userspace, and I get the distinct impression that some spammers have realised this, and deliberately put spam articles in userspace, knowing that they will still show up in web searches. I have occasionally put {{NOINDEX}} tags on such spam user pages to stop web searches from finding them, but this is not a perfect solution. Certainly G11 is supposed to apply to all pages, not just articles (that is what the G means). I think it would be a good idea to put specific mention of this issue both in the WP:Spam and in WP:Criteria for speedy deletion. I have put a link to this discussion at Wikipedia_talk:Criteria_for_speedy_deletion#Spam_in_userspace.JamesBWatson (talk) 07:01, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

In general, I will happily delete userspace content if it is clearly there for spam purposes. There are valid reasons for spammy userspace content - generally if an established user wishes to work on a deleted article in userspace to bring it up to scratch - though even these should generally be tagged as NOINDEX. But in general, spam content produced by single-purpose accounts can and should be deleted on sight regardless of the namespace - under no circumstances should spam content hosted on Wikipedia be permitted to stay visible via Google. ~ mazca ^talk 11:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely, I have focused on G11 in userspace and there's been plenty to do every day. - Dank (push to talk) 17:30, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it's good to know that there are some admins who accept that spam is unacceptable in userspace, but unfortunately, as Bubba hotep pointed out, there are many who are unwilling to delete it. JamesBWatson (talk) 01:11, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Newby biting under pretense of enforcing this policy

We have something resembling consensus here, but I think maybe the "spam" community needs to be involved too, partly because I'm not sure where the emendations to policies should appear. Maybe some of them in the SPAM policy.

There are standard template warning people not to post spam links.

They are misused.

A user writes material that would be considered a valuable contribution to Wikipedia if put into Wikipedia. But they put it in an external site. Then they add external links from Wikipedia. No advertising, no self-promotion. But they get a notice that says this:

Please stop adding inappropriate external links to Wikipedia, as you did to Algonquian peoples. It is considered spamming and Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising or promotion. Since Wikipedia uses nofollow tags, additions of links to Wikipedia will not alter search engine rankings. If you continue spamming, you will be blocked from editing Wikipedia.

This template should not be used except when there is thought to be advertising or promotion, or an attempt to alter search engine rankings. Nor should it be used when the links are not "inappropriate". There's a difference between a link being inappropriate, and a link being added by an inappropriate person, when a conflict of interest would be the reason why he should recuse himself.

That is rude newbie biting.

Even if a person were guilty of some offense, one should not use a template that includes that offense among a list of ten other offenses. That in effect accuses them of all offenses in the list. That's dishonest and unjust.

Two important points about the above:

• The standard template that mentions "inappropriate material" should be used only when the material is inappropriate; not when the person adding it should recuse himself from the decision to add it because of a conflict, and it would be appropriate if added by someone else.
• That same standard template that warns people against "advertising or promotion" should be used only in cases of advertising or promotion; not indiscriminately used in all cases where the person adding the material should have recused himself from that decision because of a conflict.

On my talk page I was told that in the instance that brought this to my attention, the templates "have been formulated with great attention to precision regarding graduated severity." That is nonsense. "Great attention to precision" doesn't just hit someone with a list of offenses if he may be guilty of one of them; "great attention to precision" does not say material is "inappropriate" when what is thought to be inappropriate is not the material itself but the identity of the person adding it; "great attention to precision" does not suggest that someone is trying to alter search engine rankings when one does not assert that there's some reason to suspect that (let alone hint at what such a reason could be); "great attention to precision" does not does accuse someone of advertising or self-promotion when one does not claim there's some reason to suspect that.

Michael Hardy (talk) 23:54, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I definitely agree with this; for me at least, it got to the point where I would sometimes wind up using completely customized text instead of the standard uw-spam1, uw-spam2 series for exactly this reason; I would see people linking to some random geocities page on another page, not necessarily their own, yet there wouldn't be a template for it. Unfortunately, I lost what wording I actually used, but the point still remains: we need a template for "this link that you added is bad, please read these guidelines" that doesn't also accuse them of spamming their own site up and down Wikipedia. Veinor ^{(talk to me)} 20:52, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• I'd love to see a template like that. Those I know are too general, I'd only use them in extreme cases. － Cy21(talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Should Wikipedia be used to promote library cataloguing services?

Despite having raised my concerns regarding the use addition of hundreds of links to the Worldcat website at Template talk:Infobox Book, an important question as to why Wikipedia should be used as platform to create hundreds of links direct to the Worldcat website has been ignored, perhaps by those who do not want those links removed. There is no reason why Worldcat should be given special treatment by linking to their site in this way, as we don't do it for any other non-commecial or comercial cataloguing service. It is not appropriate to add these lists on two grounds:

1. Wikipedia should not be used as a billboard site for Worldcat, even if the information on their site (and the related advertising) is useful;
2. it is not appropriate for an article to link to a specific cataloguing serivce :I think the more important question as to why Wikipedia should be used as platform to create hundreds of links direct to the Worldcat website has ignored.

For instance, Wikipedia does not support direct links to the Library of Congress website via a LCCN, even though it is one of the largest book collections in the World. Whether you agree or disagree with the creation of these links, please make your opinions known at Template talk:Infobox Book or at the current discussion at WP:VPP#Say no to Linkspam: OCLC Online Computer Library. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 15:02, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

• Gavin, please make your heading in a less loaded fashion. It's not as if everyone who opposes you in this do so because they want to "use Wikipedia as a billboard". Sjakkalle (Check!) 15:38, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I have amended the heading as requested. --Gavin Collins (talk|contribs) 16:25, 6 October 2009 (UTC)

Compared to the plague of links to Amazon, the Worldcat links strike me as comparatively trivial. Is there any way on earth that a bot could be created to purge the literally thousands of spamlinks to Amazon, links to Amazon "reviews" (many written, in my opinion, by the authors and their publicity supporters), etc.? --Orange Mike | Talk 12:58, 29 October 2009 (UTC) (yes, I work - albeit very part-time - for one of the few surviving independent bookseller with whom Amazon competes)

Bookspam

Added a section on bookspam; it occurs often enough that it ought to be mentioned in the guideline. Durova³⁴⁵ 16:47, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I think it would be helpful to distinguish two different things: (1) addition of books to the reference section that would be genuinely helpful for other editors to improve the article or that provide useful additional information to article readers, without at the same time expanding the article, and (2) addition of books to the reference section that do not provide any additional useful information beyond the references already listed and that are intended less to improve the article and more to promote the book. The former is not bookspam and should not be discouraged. The latter is bookspam whether or not it occurs concurrently with an expansion of the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:07, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

"Further reading" serves the former purposes, and should not be confused with false references. Durova³⁴⁷ 01:26, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

Maybe, but conflating spam with this sort of minor mislabeling is not a good idea. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:45, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

When a single author or publishing house systematically adds entries to reference sections without modifying a syllable of the articles themselves, that's spam. Plain and simple. That's what the new section is about, and yes it's been going on a long time. Feel free to modify the section if you think that distinction needs to be clearer. Durova³⁴⁷ 01:55, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I totally agree with the new section. Of course there will be borderlines between spam and legitimate addition of external links, as there are borderlines in anything we try to restrict. However, I have frequently seen examples of an editor going from article to article adding the same link to the same book, clearly not because the link happens to be relevant to all the articles, but because they want to advertise the book. That is spam, and it is quite right that we should recognise the fact. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:52, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree that what you describe is spam. I'm just not convinced that Durova's wording adequately distinguishes this sort of spam from constructive addition of additional sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:57, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

• We should say something about adding self-published books to Further reading or References sections. (Cf. previous discussion.) Vanity publishing is on the increase via suppliers like Lulu.com and BookSurge. The principles governing the inclusion of such books in Further reading lists should be modelled on the principles governing the use of private websites as external links. --JN466 03:07, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
  • A link from this section to WP:SPS might be reasonable. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
    • Indeed. However, note that editors may argue (and have argued) that "Further reading" sections are precisely for those books that per WP:SPS aren't good enough to be used as sources in the article itself. --JN466 03:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
      • I'd be happy with a clearer statement here that in most cases self-published books should not be listed as additional reading, although there are exceptional self-published books that are even good enough to be used as real references. This is in part what I've been arguing about with Durova above: her statement is worded as being about listing things as references when they're not really referenced in the text of the article, which isn't about spam at all, it's about proper sourcing. If a bookspammer adds a sentence within the text of an article referencing the book, or if a bookspammer adds the book to the additional reading section, it's still bookspam, but neither of those would fall under the section as currently written. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:51, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
        • In a comment above David Eppstein agreed that bookspam exists, but said he was "not convinced that Durova's wording adequately distinguishes this sort of spam from constructive addition of additional sources". Now he seems on the face of it to be denying that it is a question of spam at all, and wants instead merely "clearer statement here that in most cases self-published books should not be listed as additional reading". However, this does not apply only to self-published books. Also I do not agree that "listing things as references when they're not really referenced in the text of the article ... isn't about spam at all". Certainly it is not always spam, as there are various reasons for doing this, including simply an inexperienced editor who has not grasped what "reference" means. Nevertheless, it is frequently done as a deliberate means of gaining publicity for a book, and in that case it certainly is spam. I agree with David that Durova's wording does not clearly enough define exactly what constitutes "bookspam", but I think the solution is to seek a better wording, not to reject it altogether; a note about self-published sources would not fulfill the same function. I don't agree, however, that the problem is a failure to "distinguish this sort of spam from constructive addition of additional sources", but rather a failure to distinguish it from other types of unconstructive attempts at addition of sources. I also agree with Jayen466 (who signs as JN466) that we should also cover "Further reading" sections etc, as well as false "references". However, while Jayen466's suggestion of a note about self-published books is a good one, I see this as a quite different issue from bookspam: on the one hand not all bookspam is for self-published books, and on the other hand there are other reasons why inclusion of self-published books is often bad, apart from spam. Finally, I do not see that Durova's last paragraph (about students using Wikipedia for term papers) is really needed. I do not disagree with any of what it says, but whoever uses Wikipedia, and whatever they use it for, we should seek to maintain high standards: we don't need to specify particular examples. I have boldly rewritten the section in line with the above ideas. It is now shorter and, in my opinion, simpler and more to the point. While it is not exactly what either David Eppstein or Jayen466 suggested, I think it goes at least part way to addressing the points they have raised. Comments, criticisms, and further improvements will be welcome. JamesBWatson (talk) 10:52, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
          • If you think I don't think bookspam exists then you are grossly misreading my comments. It exists. However, I do not think that all additions of references that do not also expand the article are bookspam: it is possible for such an addition to be a good-faith improvement. —David Eppstein (talk) 12:42, 30 October 2009 (UTC)
            • I apologise, I did not express myself clearly. It was perfectly clear that you acknowledge that bookspam exists. What I was trying to say was something like "David has agreed that bookspam exists, but then later made a comment which on the face of it appears to be saying that what Durova is referring to is not bookspam at all", and then I went on to try to analyse to what extent what you said was valid, despite that apparent contradiction. I actually agree with you that Durova had not got it quite right, but not that what she was referring to "isn't about spam at all". I tried to produce a solution which, as I indicated above, takes into account the comments made by all, including you. While the result will probably not be exactly what any one of us would have liked (including myself) I was hoping that it would go some way towards answering all of our concerns. Once again, I repeat that I did not imagine that you did not believe that bookspam exists, and I apologise for having given that impression. JamesBWatson (talk) 19:04, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

FWIW I'm much happier with Johnuniq's rewrite. —David Eppstein (talk) 02:41, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Since vanity publishers were mentioned in the discussion, substituted vanity publishers for self-published books. Reliable authors have been known to self-publish; this gets it a bit closer to the mark. And actually most of the bookspam I've dealt with comes from credible publishing houses rather than vanity publishers, so removed "often". Durova³⁵⁵ 03:18, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

I included the remark about self-published books in response to suggestions above from JN466 and David Eppstein. Every edit since then (4 of them) has changed this remark, and what we have now does not mention self-publishing at all, so it looks as though there is not much consensus for a special mention of it. The comment has in fact mutated into "Sometimes bookspam consists of material from vanity publishers or other non-reliable publishers". Is there any need to make a special mention of that? When bookspam comes from these sources it is no different from when it comes from more respectable sources, and so the question is irrelevant to the topic of "spam". Also, as Durova correctly points out, much bookspam comes from credible publishing houses. For these reasons I am removing the remark; if anyone thinks it should come back they can revert. JamesBWatson (talk) 12:10, 4 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the present wording is too weak: defining bookspam as adding books "although the books added do not add any useful and relevant information" allows any vanity-published author to argue, with full personal conviction, that of course his book adds "useful and relevant information", and any Wikipedian arguing otherwise will be perceived as insulting the book and its author by implying that it isn't "useful and relevant". Let's rather use a more objective criterion. I propose that we require self-published books to have been cited by multiple RS; this will exclude vanity publications, while allowing notable self-published authors access. Would anyone object to that? --JN466 11:20, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Actually, we could phrase it more generally, without singling out self-published books: "The minimum criterion for including any book in "further reading" is that it should have been cited by multiple reliable sources covering the article subject." --JN466 11:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

[3] Please review. --JN466 11:55, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

For further background rationale, see [4]. --JN466 16:57, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

• The problem is that we have detailed guidelines for external links in WP:ELNO, but nothing comparable for books. As long as we don't, the number of books by lulu.com etc. Wikipedia recommends to its readers will rise steadily.
• Examples (look for Lulu):
  • [5]
  • [6]
  • [7]
  • "Speak Arabic Instantly"
  • more than 1,000 Lulu booksused as sources or recommended reading
• The occasional book by Lulu may be alright, but my understanding is that for the most part it's material that is so poor that no reliable publisher would ever touch it. For the Lulu publishing process see Lulu.com#Process; there is no editorial oversight whatsoever. I feel that before we allow Wikipedians to recommend books from such publishers in "Further reading" section, there should be third-party evidence that anyone takes the book seriously. --JN466 22:45, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Agree it's spam if a publisher add links to his own business. Like I mentioned above, I think it's easier to say 'avoid all auto-promotion' in the guidelines. － Cy21(talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

New example

A relevant report is at WP:COIN#McGraw-Hill. Two users (96.248.91.79 and 198.45.19.50) are busy adding "further reading" sections which amazingly refer to books from a particular publisher. Why wouldn't publishers spam when it's so easy? Johnuniq (talk) 03:58, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Another new example of bookspam: Special:Contributions/Ambarsande. I reverted the one from Kissing number problem but there are a lot more. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:12, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Citation spam

Added this section. This is a fairly pervasive problem and a very aggressive form of link-building scheme employed by spammers--Hu12 (talk) 15:54, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Agree with that. --JN466 23:04, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Me too! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How do we reconcile this concern with WP:CITE which says, Since per WP:V each fact presented by an article must be concretely verifiable, at the editor's discretion it is possible and appropriate to include as many proper and correct citations as desired to affirm the statements made? If the source meets the guidelines for reliability and affirms the statements made, why is it relevant how many other articles use the source? Shouldn't there be a distinction between legitimate scholarly sources and links to commercial web sites? Aren't major changes to Wiki content guidelines supposed to have some consensus first? It seems like this one was added in haste, and was not carefully written so as to meet its objective without conflicting with the long standing WP:CITE guideline. Can we treat convenience links to true scholarly sources as different from links to commercial sites that are selling a product? Fishgeek (talk) 06:29, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

WP:REFSPAM talks about the "illegitimate or improper use of citations, footnotes or references in a manner inconsistent with accepted standards" and the "removal of multiple valid sources and text in particular articles, in favor of a single, typically questionable or low value web source". In other words, there is absolutely no risk of WP:REFSPAM conflicting with WP:CITE. REFSPAM is alerting editors to the fact that someone adding a factoid followed by a reference may simply be spamming, and the reference should be checked to see if it is helpful to the article. By "factoid" I mean that sometimes a spammer will say something like "X's favorite color is blue[reference here]", and the information may be correct, but it needs to be evaluated (do not assume that everyone adding references is in fact helping the article). Johnuniq (talk) 07:05, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Non-Profit spam?

Is information concerning a non-profit organization "spam" as anticipated by this guideline? Posit an IRS-approved non-profit having a single article in WP mainspace. Would that be instantly deletable as spam? Would a single article in userspace about such an organization be deletable instantly as spam? In each case posit that the organization has no products of any kind for sale on the page, nor would it ask for funds on the page. Collect (talk) 12:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Being non-profit may reduce the motives for spam, but it doesn't change the definitions. As for a single article, it would still have to be written in a neutral non-promotional style to avoid G11 speedy deletion, it would have to make some sort of assertion of significance for the organization to avoid A7 speedy deletion, and it would have to pass WP:ORG to avoid slower deletion. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Would you differentiate between a userspace page and a mainspace article? Presume here that the page makes no comment about donations, funding or the like in any way, but appears primarily set up for information on the non-profit (e.g. a teachers association or the like). Collect (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Using your individual userspace to host an advertisement for an organization is a clear violation of WP:NOT#WEBHOST; and if the userspace is that of an account for the organization itself, then the account should be blocked as a role account (and probably a spamusername as well). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:42, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

At what precise point does information about, say, a school PTA become an "advertisement"? Collect (talk) 21:47, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

That tends to fall under the "This isn't promotion, it's valuable information everybody needs!" category, to me. (That's an invalid argument, for those not familiar with WP:VALINFO.) --Orange Mike | Talk 15:57, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

'Come to us to study pharmacology, chemistry, engineering!' (see also [8])? A precise point does not exist, but ... --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 21:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

The example posited was not one which was "come here to study" etc. but more like a school PTA or other non-profit. Or perhaps an organization like ASME. At what point would a userspace page on such an organization become "spam"? Collect (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

As I said, a precise point does not exist, and there will always be borderline cases. If it is written promotional, then it becomes spam, otherwise it should not be in userspace but moved to mainspace. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 22:13, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Then posit that the group is not notable by WP standards for a mainspace article, or does not have sufficient RS sources to establish notability in any case. A recent one might be User:Adammac138 as an example. For one with no links try User:Wilkikay. Provided as examples, not as entries to be deleted. Collect (talk) 22:30, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Orangemike: these are clear violations of WP:NOT#WEBHOST. Possibly they're not sufficiently promotional to be deleted immediately with G11, but they should go. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:49, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Is that a case where WP:SPAM is an absolute reason for deletion - or ought they be placed properly for discussion at MfD in such a case? And if the discussion discounts SPAM, what then? Collect (talk) 23:07, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer MfD. Violating WP:SPAM is not a speedy deletion reason, although being too promotional in tone and content (WP:CSD#G11) is. I don't think these two are bad enough to be eligible for G11, but others may reasonably disagree. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

G11 refers to "exclusively promotional". It also uses the term "article" which I am unsure applies for userpages. Where actual information is imparted would you still use G11? Collect (talk) 00:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

G11 definitely applies to user pages, not just articles: that's why it's in the G series rather than the A series of criteria. But to my mind it's less about whether the article is informative and more about whether it could reasonably be seen as neutral. Also, user pages masquerading as articles such as the ones above start out with a strike against them, to me, because they likely wouldn't be there if it were possible to create a neutral and properly sourced article in article space. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:50, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Seems a bit of prejudgement there, no? Right now there is a userpage for what appears to be a UK version of "Make A Wish" - ought WP be so aggressive in pushing such people away? Collect (talk) 13:49, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

If they are here to publicize their cause/organization/whatever, and not to contribute to this project, I most emphatically feel that we should be aggressive in holding them to the same standards everybody else must adhere to: WP:SPAM, WP:NOT#WEBHOST, the prohibition of role accounts, etc.. I vehemently object to any kind of "fluffy bunny exemption" for rulebreaking in noble causes. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

"Spam" here is not just for commercial promotion, but for any kind of promotion and self-advertisement. We are constantly bombarded by non-profits trying to raise their profile by spamming Wikipedia. David has masterfully summed up the ways in which our standards are violated: promotion and non-notable organizations. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, be aware that 'non-profit' organisations still need money to exist. I know it is a type of bad faith assuming remark I have made over and over, but if you are a non-profit organisation who helps children in far-far-away, relying on money from the public, then having your links here does improve your visibility and help you gain money for that, and if you are the manager of the web-department of a non-profit museum, then having links here results in increased traffic to your site (which you can show with your web-statistics ...) and shows that you need a bigger computer to handle the traffic, and that you are doing your job fine (&c. &c.). The incentives are generally smaller and different than Sildenafil, and it is less bad, but unfortunately we can't rule them out. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:50, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

How to deal with spam?

Special:Contributions/71.175.252.2, Special:Contributions/Highspeedrailusa, Special:Contributions/98.111.181.133 --NE2 01:18, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Another IP Spamming;

98.111.172.226 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

I'd suggest block IP;

71.175.252.2 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

and range block

98.111.160.0/19 (talk • contribs • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)

Appears to only be spam and vandalism occuring from these ranges in the last 3 weeks. Obviously related, looks to be some form of work and home IP mix.--Hu12 (talk) 18:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

The new IP keeps going, I've rangeblocked IP 98.111.160.0/19 for 2 weeks for Persistent spamming.--Hu12 (talk) 18:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also discussed here --Hu12 (talk) 19:24, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Somebody posted spam in the discussion section of the list of Sex and the City episodes. It includes many links to other websites. I didn't delete it; I wondered if others can do something stronger than just deleting it. Thanks. Talk:List of Sex and the City episodes —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.9.112.31 (talk) 19:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I removed it. There are no other links to the spammed website on en.wikipedia.org, and the spamming contributor has not done anything else. I am now watching the page and I don't think anything more needs to be done. Johnuniq (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

• QUESTION: In cases we don't know what to do, is it better to remove just the http:// so search engines can't be index them (and the links are still there)? Or is it better not to because wiki-bots need them? (This is generally citation link/spam) － Cy21(talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

How not to deal with spam

Can I remind contributors that this page is for discussing improvements to the page Wikipedia:Spam, and not for reporting or discussing individual cases of spamming. JamesBWatson (talk) 15:53, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

I put a note on top of this page (diff). Might need some rewording. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Chambers of commerce

Are references to chambers of commerce, otherwise without notability, allowable as external links? If not, shouldn't they be mentioned here? Student7 (talk) 14:49, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

ritualabuse.us

Please, why is this particular website banned? Most of the users whom abused it were proven to be sock-puppets and have been indefinitely banned, and this site was one of many dozens the users in questions used. However, I personally cannot see how the site itself can be considered 'spam', and it does contain a source of helpful information and evidence-backed cases regarding Satanic ritual abuse. Thank you, Aangman14 (talk) 00:55, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The site ritualabuse.us has been blacklisted because it has been spammed. I have no idea if the site is good or bad – that is not relevant. When sites are aggressively added to articles to promote either the site or a particular point of view, the URL is blacklisted as a last resort. See here for a previous discussion (that is an archive; do not attempt to change it).

In principle, you could request an exemption for a specific web page at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist (you would need to say what external URL you wanted to use in what article and why). However, given my quick scan of the above page you may not be successful because there was really aggressive promotion of the site and the volunteers at Wikipedia cannot spend indefinite amounts of time debating points of view. Johnuniq (talk) 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ugh. No offence, but, frankly, yes, I did expect this form of response. Disappointing, yes, but, sadly, not shocking for Wikipedia, I fear... Whom used it as spam? A couple of sockpuppets? And what was it used with? A couple dozen of other websites? The website itself is an excellent source for ritual abuse information; I myself am of the view Wikipedia, or, more specifically, select users with an interest in such topics, is indeed heavily suppressing information concerning valid evidence involving the issue. Now, I understand that people such as you consider it far beneath your notice to consider these matters, but has the thought that those whom were opposed to the site used it as spam in the first place, to get it blocked from Wikipedia? I cannot imagine how the continued blocking of the site could help Wikipedia at all, with the IP Addresses of the abusers indefinitely blocked, and with so few people even knowing of the site's very existence, but I grow weary indeed of debating an issue such as this. I will not embarass myself further by continuing this discussion. Thank you. Aangman14 (talk) 18:35, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

You simply repeat the statement that "it's an excellent source" as if it should be obvious to all of us and we should simply believe someone who's second edit was trying to get it removed. I think it's a reasonable request for you to show us how exactly it could be used instead of trying to rehash a discussion we had last July. In my view, since we've lasted from July until now without anybody else (other than the site-owner's numerous accounts) caring about it, it doesn't seem that needed a source. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:20, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

People, be aware of a long history of sockpuppetry surrounding this topic. Cheers, Skinwalker (talk) 23:54, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Cheers indeed, Skinwalker. What is your point, my friend? That any whom happened to try to link to this site as a source, found it blocked, and tried to bring it up is a freaking sockpuppet? Your lack of good faith here is indeed, frankly, personally, repulsive, and also quite disappointing. The issue's been ended. I came here, to this talk page, only because another sysop insisted I do so; is he a sockpuppet also, then? Look, I swear to God, I am not the site-owner, nor did I know of the site's very existence until days past; I am just a random guy who is concerned about the suppressing of satanic ritual abuse information and want to do something about it. I went to Jimbo Wales's talk page yesterday, and the last comment someone made was, basically, telling me to fuck off and if I should bring the matter up again, Jimbo would ban me. I really am disgusted. However, as I am even more so disappointed, I neither responded, nor did I attempt to bring up the issue again after Wales removed it for some reason from his talk page. Frankly, I no longer give a fuck. Please, then, let the site remained block, let them suppress information about ritual abuse. I no longer care about this issue; some of you here have truly sickened me, despite my attempts to keep good faith and maintain civility. Farewell. Aangman14 (talk) 20:35, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

That is a mistaken interpretation. The last comment in the section was an obviously deranged post by an IP which was trolling both you and Jimbo. Again, you have repeated your claims without any engagement in the prior discussion where you have been invited to nominate an article and a change that you would like in that article. Johnuniq (talk) 00:44, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Measuring Spam with Tools (?)

I just tried the Microsoft's Detecting Online Commercial Intention mentioned in section How to identify spam and spammers, results give “Non-Commercial Intention n%” (percentage). I know we can't put a clear limit but is it possible to get some kind of score range? Or at least from what percentage can we start to consider an article to be advertisement? － Cy21(talk) 14:13, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

It's an experimental tool from Microsoft, and clearly fails our standards of reliable sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 17:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

WP:Long-term abuse at AfD

WP:LTA has been nominated for deletion; discussion here. Johnuniq (talk) 01:39, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

{{contact info}}

Some time ago, I created a template, {{contact info}}, to cover up contact information that is included within an article nominated for deletion as spam. Now I'm having second thoughts about this template, and I'd like to hear the community's feedback on its existence and its documentation. The template is listed on {{spam-nav}} and has been from the day it was created. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:03, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

In case no one else has, let me say thanks for putting the time in to create this. I have to admit I'm not sure when I would personally use it though - wouldn't it always be better just to take out the contact info? Thparkth (talk) 01:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

What led me to create the template is that in many case the info will be back in a matter of minutes. Now I'm not aware of anyone using this template nearly as much as I do, but I've noticed that it helps to prevent edit warring. But my biggest concern with it is WP:BITE. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 01:19, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that makes sense - perhaps even more so on an article which is potentially salvageable than on one which will be speedy deleted within minutes. For what it's worth, it doesn't seem too bitey to me. Thparkth (talk) 01:25, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

I think it is a good idea, and I wish I had known about it earlier. If a page is being considered for possible deletion as spam it is helpful to know that the author of it included contact information, and tagging it in this way provides that information without keeping the contact information visible. If it also reduces the risk of the information being restored then that is another advantage. It doesn't seem to me very bitey, in fact much less so than many other template messages etc. JamesBWatson (talk) 08:58, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Want a discussion on a removal of an external link

I added an external link to the Monty Hall Problem page that was subsequenctly removed by Rick Block. The argument was that the link was for the purpose of promoting my site. The apparent reason was that I have a mechanism for selling Java applets wherever they are included on a page. A Java applet is indeed included in the page a link to which I wanted to add to the Monty Hall Problem.

Neither the applet, nor the page have been written with the purpose of selling anything. I do place advertisement on my pages, though. Maintaining a site is an expensive enterprise. I need to recoup as much of the expenses as I can. However, as an argument, I am very selective with the ads. I do not allow expandable ads, or popups, or anything overly distractive.

Every web publisher wishes to promote his or her site, because the content is written to be read, not as an exercise in futility. It is hard for me to fathom why Rick considers my link as a site promotion whereas accepts the links to Wolfram and NY Times. True, they do not offer their applets for sale. As obviously, they are in the business of selling. What is the difference?

I think that my applet explains the situation with the Monty Hall Problem in the clearest way possible and deserves to be known better. I am certain that many of the wikipedia users will appreciate that page. I wish that the page was judged on its merits and not of a superficial suspicion that it was created for the sake of promotion.

Thank you for your attention, Alexander Bogomolny (Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 20:18, 2 June 2010 (UTC))

I think that, since here you are admitting that you have inserted the link for promotional purposes, the reversion was indeed the right decision. Links to the NY Times website are not inserted by NY Times employees. That's the difference. -- Blanchardb -^{Me•MyEars•MyMouth}- timed 23:20, 2 June 2010 (UTC)

If that's the difference, could you please check that link for its merits. I would absolutely depend on you for making that crucial decision: is that page of mine any worse than NY Times' and Wolfram's. Please add a link if you find its worthy - this is exactly what I wanted to happen. But please, do not do a promotion. This is for the record: I explicitly forbid you to promote that page of mine. Just add a link if you think that the page is on par with either of the mentioned two. Is that fair?

The place to discuss this is WP:ELN. Having "cut-the-knot" in a username and adding a link to a site with that name is probably not desirable, see WP:ORGNAME. Johnuniq (talk) 00:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you mean to suggest that if I dress up as another user my editing would be less critique prone? Well, I appreciate that. I do have a backup email, but I would be ashamed to do that now. This is really a problem. I always thought of these external links as benefiting both your audience and my site, the latter as a side effect. I would not submit a link just for that cursed sake. But if I change the user name, this is how it will look like.

Bottom line; unlike that NY Times, your site is not notable. Also see WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 01:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)

Had it been the reason for the link removal, I'd have been distraught, unhappy, but would not find sufficient grounds for protestation - I have probably already stole too much of your time. Now, that the annunciated reasons were different - and unjustified in my view - I think the fellow down there should either adopt your view point or put the link back in.

(Alexb@cut-the-knot.com (talk) 01:11, 3 June 2010 (UTC))