[go: nahoru, domu]
Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    Welcome to the external links noticeboard
    This page is for reporting possible breaches of the external links guideline.
    • Post questions here regarding whether particular external links are appropriate or compliant with Wikipedia's guidelines for external links.
    • Provide links to the relevant article(s), talk page(s), and external links(s) that are being discussed.
    • Questions about prominent websites like YouTube, IMDb, Twitter, or Find a Grave might be addressed with information from this guide.
    		 Sections older than 10 days archived by MiszaBot.
    Click here to purge this page
    (For help, see Wikipedia:Purge)
    Shortcuts
    If you mention specific editors, you must notify them. You may use {{subst:ELN-notice}} to do so.
    Search this noticeboard & archives

    Additional notes:

    To start a new request, enter a report title (section header) below:

    Indicators
    Defer discussion:
     Defer to WPSPAM
     Defer to XLinkBot
     Defer to Local blacklist
     Defer to Abuse filter

    Know Your Meme

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion/Log/2024 July 11 § Template:Know Your Meme. 0xDeadbeef→∞ (talk to me) 08:15, 11 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Bot? Sock? Farm?

    [edit]

    As I've said over at SPI...

    I'm wondering if this is a single spammer, a spambot or a spamfarm – if it is, then it might be possible to nip this in the bud via blocks or an edit filter; however, it might just be somewhere offering advice on how to slip a link into the 'pedia without it being noticed and/or making it difficult to justify just hitting 'undo'.

    The edits – [1] [2] – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{cn}}, moving a category from one place to another, and then overwriting a previous spam link with a new one barely related to the subject.

    It feels like a bot, but a clever one, which then points to it not being a bot at all. Tricky! I'd be interested in what others might think. 81.187.192.168 (talk) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for this note, and especially for de-spamming those two articles. (It can't be too clever, because it put a spammy link for a service provider in Florida on an article about a place in Spain.)
    I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @Beetstra, MER-C, LaundryPizza03, any thoughts on how to detect this? WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Found one more account.

    The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.

    See also Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali. MER-C 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the extra work on this, folks. I brought this up because the modus operandi looked familiar. I've just spent half an hour looking back at my edits from the past couple of days and saw this by Drutohishab (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) which is clearly the same bot or sockmaster or whatever. And I'm sure there have been others I've seen in the last few weeks, but finding them would likely be something of a timesink for very little benefit. Is there anywhere to report them if I spot such edits again? Or, since they appear to just make the one spam edit and never do anything again, is it pointless? 81.187.192.168 (talk) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. MER-C 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Except nobody has updated the blacklist since May, and requests get sent into archives after 1 week (I just changed it to 90 days). That particular system is not working for lack of maintenance. -- GreenC 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I have little experience with spam links, but I think the increased delay in archival will increase the likelihood that an admin will respond. I think a spam-blacklist open request task should also be listed in WP:AN's header. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    [edit]

    For articles about a software package, is it acceptable to have a link to the package's downloads page in addition to an official website link? Specifically on Komodo Edit (Talk), an editor added a link to a page to download the software from the publisher (https://downloads.activestate.com/Komodo/) in addition to the "Official website" that already existed. I removed the downloads link as it struck me a breach of WP:ELMINOFFICIAL. The editor who added the link argues that it's helpful since navigating to the downloads page from the main site requires "a circuitous series of click-throughs" (which is true, to be fair). I don't see anything specifically addressing software downloads on the Wiki page for the software in the EL guide, so I'm hoping we can get some guidance here. Thanks!Wburrow (talk) 17:03, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    We're not here to make it easy for people to download software, we're here to discuss encyclopaedically the software. A link to the official site should be sufficient per WP:ELOFFICIAL. Can the download be accessed from the official site? If so then there's no need for a second link. And we already have the repository in the infobox (which is dubious if it falls afoul or not.) Canterbury Tail talk 17:19, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Canterbury Tail; also, I add, in case it ever comes up, that a link that autodownloads software (as opposed to one that links to a "Download now" button) would be very unfriendly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:01, 7 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:IETF RFC exempt from WP:NOELBODY?

    [edit]

    Your opinion is sought at Template talk:IETF RFC#Use in article body, please. fgnievinski (talk) 03:15, 14 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Since this location was pointed out to me, I wanted to note that I started an external links-related discussion at WP:Village pump (policy)#Formatting of election pages - external links and pseudoheads. I'm happy to move or have it moved here if it is the more appropriate venue. Thanks, Ost (talk) 22:26, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    [edit]

    Months ago I warned User:Themashup to stop canvassing external links to BookBrowse. As far as I can tell, they've added the links in good faith. After objecting to my warning they've resumed canvassing adding the links [3],[4],[5],[6]. I've nominated BookBrowse for deletion as I don't see how it meets any notability criteria. I'm seeking additional opinions as to whether this sort of canvassing is appropriate, and I've notified them of this discussion. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:54, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not quite sure what you mean by canvassing. WP:REFSPAM, maybe?
    All of the diffs you link show an online magazine being used to support article content. Wikipedia:External links repeatedly things like "these external-link guidelines do not apply to citations to reliable sources within the body of the article" (emphasis in the original). I think that you will need to take your concern to Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard and explain why you think https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/1285/brick-lane#media_reviews from a review aggregator website is actually WP:UNRELIABLE for statements, e.g., about how many stars Kirkus Reviews did or didn't give that book. I think you'll find that story difficult to sell there, so I suggest thinking about how you could present your concern clearly. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, "canvas" isn't the right word here, ref spamming is what I intended to convey. Thanks for your input. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:01, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I am so confused right now. I told you I felt you diddn't know what BookBrowse was as you acted like it was just nonsense when it adds media reception (take for instance: https://www.bookbrowse.com/reviews/index.cfm/book_number/2286/in-the-kitchen#media_reviews, they also, from what I checked, for more info on the media scores they have a section on it: https://www.bookbrowse.com/more_info/index.cfm/fuseaction/faq_20/full/1) and when I asked and told you I diddn't see what you're point was it feels like you ignored answering my question with no point it seemed. Aggregates are sometimes used on Wiki for purposes and that seemed lost when trying to communicate with you. You brought no good reason, from what I checked over and over again, only that it was nonsenical or spam rather than anything useful and brought no real point with it and when I asked for a point I was ignored and it felt like you lacked any reasoning. Themashup (talk) 19:21, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I start to feel this is better handled at Wikipedia talk:WPSPAM and/or Wikipedia:COI/N. I see some rather dedicated accounts aroun. (I must agree, not a discussion for here) Dirk Beetstra T C 19:36, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid=1245058330"