Jump to content

Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous edit
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
 
Line 1: Line 1:
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]] [[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]{{/header}}
[[Category:Wikipedia noticeboards]]
[[Category:Wikipedia dispute resolution]]
[[Category:Non-talk pages that are automatically signed|{{PAGENAME}}]]

{{Archives|collapsed=yes|image=none|search=yes}}
{{/Header}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|maxarchivesize = 200K
|maxarchivesize = 400K
|counter = 2
|counter = 23
|algo = old(10d)
|algo = old(6d)
|minthreadsleft=8
|archive = Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
|archive = Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard/Archive %(counter)d
}} __NEWSECTIONLINK__ <!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->
}}

<!-- Add new questions at the bottom of the page -->

== User:Ani medjool ==

<s>[[User:Ani medjool]] shows two links to Youtube. They appear to be investigations by The Guardian. I'm not seeing anything license or statement wise giving Youtube permission. I asked the user if he knew but action was not taken. Is this a [[WP:ELNEVER]] concern or am I just not seeing the license?[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 00:28, 2 February 2010 (UTC)</s> Disregard they were removed[[User:Cptnono|Cptnono]] ([[User talk:Cptnono|talk]]) 00:31, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

== Elinks dispute at [[Talk:Centrifugal force (rotating reference frame)#RfC: Does a link to a web-comic belong in this article|Talk:Centrifugal force]] ==

I'd like to invite editors here familiar with the guidelines to comment on the RfC there. Currently there is something of a stalemate with regard to the proposed link (addition/removal), with various IPs and some registered editors first removing the (offensive to them) link, which is then reverted (for the reason given that 'the dispute has not been settled'). Any editors willing to chip in their opinion would be helpful, though it might be useful to read the current reasonings first. Thanks. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 01:06, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

:[http://xkcd.com/123/ This] is the link in question. The RfC has been open for about two months, and the responses haven't been obviously for or against. I'm sure that responses from editors (especially from non-specialists) would be appreciated. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:23, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

:I consider this to be a self-evident violation of [[WP:CANVAS]]. This call is self-evidently trying to imply that the link is only considered to be offensive, and only mentions one side of the story. The implication that it's OK to remove links when there is clear lack of consensus to do so, where's the heck that coming from?- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">[[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|<font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">'''Wolfkeeper'''</font>]]</span></small> 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

:As the person that added the link, the link is on-topic, concise, accurate, informative, amusing and I have requested the author relicense it so we can include the actual image in the wikipedia article. It violates no policies, nor is it, except to the most humour deficient deletionist in ''any way'' offensive to anyone.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">[[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|<font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">'''Wolfkeeper'''</font>]]</span></small> 04:25, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

:In the absence of the image being relicensed (it's already under a free license, but the Wikipedia needs a commercial 'free' license), there is no replacement image, and hence this is permitted under WP:EL.- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">[[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|<font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">'''Wolfkeeper'''</font>]]</span></small> 04:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::Actually, gaining consensus about issues that are currently at a stalemate is one of the reasons this board was created. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 04:35, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:::Of course, but you're supposed to make the call neutral. You point out that there is a dicussion, and leave it at that. This call went significantly further. He's violating both the spirit and letter of [[WP:CANVAS]].- <small><span style="border:1px solid blue;">[[User_talk:Wolfkeeper|<font style="color:white;background:gray;font-family:sans-serif;">'''Wolfkeeper'''</font>]]</span></small> 05:55, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::::Wolfkeeper, I don't think that it is actually ''possible'' for any notice at a widely recognized, formal noticeboard, no matter how biased its wording, to violate [[WP:CANVAS]]. But even if it is, I hope that you'll [[WP:AGF|assume]] that the editors who frequent this board are smart enough and experienced enough not to be irrevocably misled by the first message that we happen to see. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:32, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::I'm not sure why this could be seen as non-neutral; I went as far in the first sentence of saying "addition/removal". Have some faith that I did this because I was looking for editors who would be willing to comment on the issue at hand, and who have dealt with external links disputes before, and not as trying to canvass. It would make your life and mine simpler. --[[User:Izno|Izno]] ([[User talk:Izno|talk]]) 03:06, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

== timedetectives ==

I reverted some links like [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.timedetectives.co.uk these] a while ago. Now an [[Special:Contributions/213.105.214.18|IP]] has added a couple more. Any opinions on whether they are helpful? [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

:So it looks like they're links to the family trees for a handful of celebrities; the genealogy work was done by a professional service that charges a minimum of 150 pounds per tree.
:It also looks probable that the IP is the owner of the service, who (naturally enough) would like his business to be promoted on Wikipedia.
:I don't think these links provide useful or encyclopedic information about the people in question. I would remove them all. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:01, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::Thanks. I just removed them all. [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] ([[User talk:Johnuniq|talk]]) 06:56, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

== erowid ==

I am concerned about the number of times that erowid.org appears as an external link (and sometimes cited as a reference) ([http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&search=erowid&fulltext=Search over 500 times]) Does the content on the site generally meet the criteria for External links "Sites that contain '''neutral and accurate material''' that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject" or "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from '''knowledgeable sources'''". MM[[Special:Contributions/207.69.137.6|207.69.137.6]] ([[User talk:207.69.137.6|talk]]) 16:36, 7 February 2010 (UTC)
:Erowid is a very large library & archive covering a lot of topics, so I wouldn't be surprised or very concerned about the large number of links, unless there's a problem with redundant links within articles.
:You're asking if the site's content ''generally'' meets WP:EL criteria. Since it has a lot of different kinds of content — from peer-reviewed, journal-published articles & books to archives of anecdotal, ephemeral postings by anonymous contributors — it is very much like any other library or other meta-resource: the primary concern should be whether ''specific'', individually authored content is worthy of being linked to, in the manner it is, from the relevant articles; not so much whether the collection, in aggregate, is problematic.
:If you have concerns about neutrality, accuracy, and credible authorship of specific content, I recommend dealing with that in the usual way: discussion on the article talk pages, or just [[WP:BOLD|being bold]] and pruning whatever links are of dubious research value.
:If you have concerns about the curators' editorial policy, [http://erowidcenter.org/ Erowid Center] explains this, to some extent. The FAQ says they're committed to verifying and referencing what's there already. The About Us explains that new content comes from what are essentially 'knowledgable sources' (vetted by the curators, FWIW), and new content is reviewed & edited. I'm also told (privately) "We are a long-term library that can be cited at consistent URLs for the purpose of scholarship and discussion. We strive towards 'neutral and accurate' as per our non-profit charter, but there are always errors in any library, documents age, and some are less good than others to begin with. Even with very old, out of date documents, we believe in keeping them for the purpose of long term access, the evolution of knowledge, etc. We will add editors' notes to documents that are desperately out of date or next to facts that are clearly wrong in existing documents." They also said they do minor copy edits as needed, and credit themselves when there are more substantial changes. However I certainly wouldn't interpret that as meaning that all content has been reviewed; again, I strongly suggest considering the appropriateness of linked content on a case-by-case basis. —[[User:Mjb|mjb]] ([[User talk:Mjb|talk]]) 23:42, 8 February 2010 (UTC)


== Bot? Sock? Farm? ==
::I suspect that most, but not all, of what's there meets our "knowledgeable sources" standard. However, "not actually banned by the guideline" is not the same as "you should include this link": editors must use their best judgment. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:28, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


As I've said over at [[Wikipedia talk:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali|SPI]]...
:My concern, mjb, would be the uneven mix of material. Reading the FAQ on "LSD", I was impressed by the terse, knowledgeable and informative style. That is, until an abrupt change to informal, even semi-literate original research in a new section, "Because of its extreme cheapness and potency, the purity of LSD in blotter form is not an issue: either it's lsd or untreated paper." I can't resist ... one has to ask ... was this guy on drugs? LSD is as cheap as untreated paper? What?? If it's as cheap as paper now, why would anybody bother selling an imitation? This wild plunge from the scientific to the incoherent in a single article ... not good. [[User:Piano non troppo|Piano non troppo]] ([[User talk:Piano non troppo|talk]]) 03:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::I agree it's not as clearly written as it can be, but I'm not sure you interpreted that statement in the FAQ correctly. "Why would anybody bother selling an imitation?" is actually the point. The paragraph in question is followed by an excerpt from a book which makes it more clear what they're trying to say, which is that it's unlikely that LSD on blotter has been replaced with something, because other psychoactive adulterants are going to cost more to make, and will be far less potent (have a lower quantity-to-dose ratio); an LSD-dose-sized square of blotter is too small to accommodate a psychoactive amount of pretty much anything (although if the DEA is correct, [http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/drugs_concern/lsd/lsd.htm it can happen]).
::Anyway, Erowid's own disclaimer at the top of the FAQ indicate it's probably not an ideal reference, as it's an archived publication (e.g., from Usenet archives), not part of their 'current' collection. More generally, like I said, if a particular document contains questionable content or has poorly written sections, then we probably shouldn't link to it. I wouldn't blacklist the entire domain over it. As the previous commenter said, editors must use their best judgment. —[[User:Mjb|mjb]] ([[User talk:Mjb|talk]]) 22:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)


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'.
== Petitions ==


The edits – [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=British_Compressed_Air_Society&diff=prev&oldid=1239094529] [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=M86_Swimming_Center&diff=prev&oldid=1239096337] – are interesting and identical: making non-destructive, useless, or cosmetic changes (capitalisation, spacing, image placement), sticking in a barely necessary {{tl|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.
Is it OK to link to a petition website for a petition related to an article? In particular I have found a petition to have a criminal released from prison in the external links of his article, wanted to know official policy regarding this. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 08:50, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:I think [[WP:SOAP]] applies here. External links shouldn't really be used for advocacy of causes. '''[[User:Themfromspace|<font color="blue">Them</font>]][[User talk:Themfromspace|<font color="red">From</font>]][[Special:Contributions/themfromspace|<font color="black">Space</font>]]''' 19:29, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
:I oppose this sort of link as unencyclopedic, although if there are newspaper stories (or [[WP:RS|things like that]]) discussing the fact that petitions are being circulated, then this verifiable fact might [[WP:DUE|be appropriate]] to include in the body of the article.
:Additionally, it's widely known that [[online petitions]] are a complete waste of time and energy (no political body pays any attention to them), so I think that including the link would tend to make the reader think that Wikipedia was not a serious or thoughtful enterprise. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)
::I appreciate the advice from both of you, thanks. [[User:Freikorp|Freikorp]] ([[User talk:Freikorp|talk]]) 10:21, 13 February 2010 (UTC)


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. [[Special:Contributions/81.187.192.168|81.187.192.168]] ([[User talk:81.187.192.168|talk]]) 10:39, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
== Dmoz hater ==


: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.)
An [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.191.163.74 IP User] has an anti Dmoz fetish, and is wholesale replacing Dmoz links with paid-for-listing Yahoo directory ones, despite the obvious inferiority of the Yahoo links. On [[User_talk:2005#WP:EL|my talk page]] he has asserted more than 20 editors have stated a preference for Yahoo links over Dmoz ('''"More than 20 editors agree with this point and only two disagree"''') and a bizarre assertion that [[WP:EL]] mentions the Yahoo directory when it does not. Frankly these statements and actions are mystifying since no such discussions or text have occurred. I'm posting here partly to get some agreement that the jillions of Dmoz links we have are fine, especially as a single link in highly popular, highly spammable articles (like the gambling ones in question here)... and to get some help in reversion policing of this particular user's fetish regarding changing all these links to yahoo while making up guideline text and phantom 20/2 discussions as a justification for doing it. [[User:2005|2005]] ([[User talk:2005|talk]]) 02:11, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:I'd be curious what the anti-spam folks think of this. @[[User:Beetstra|Beetstra]], [[User:MER-C|MER-C]], [[User:LaundryPizza03|LaundryPizza03]], any thoughts on how to detect this? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:08, 7 August 2024 (UTC)


*{{spamlink|poolremovalorlando.com}}
:It says here at a [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam#What_to_do_with_linkfarms Wikipedia Spam Reduction Project] page that Yahoo Directory is part of the Wikipedia spam project and can be used as an alternative to DMOZ. So I am here to defend my actions of replacing DMOZ listings, which are full of outdated and few sites, with fresh Yahoo listings. Many DMOZ pages are full of poor quality outdated links, whereas Yahoo has to update their pages with fresh links that actually work and are not left around for years at a time. There is controversy about DMOZ editors adding only their own sites to these pages and nothing else, thus reduces the quality of these pages and prevents extremely high quality sites from ever being listed there. Adding the Yahoo directory link instead of poor DMOZ links actually helps Wikipedia visitors out, giving them a fresher and higher quality choice of sites, and this is more important than this guy's Pro-DMOZ fetish.
*{{spamlink|fittingdeals.com}}
*{{spamlink|agencja-celna.co.uk}}


Found one more account.
:I would also like Wikipedia Administrators to consider adding Best of the Web (BOTW) directory in addition to the spam project's templates like DMOZ and Yahoo directory. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.191.163.74|68.191.163.74]] ([[User talk:68.191.163.74|talk]]) 03:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{UserSummary|Dutsono}}


The normal spam feeds should pick this up. Whether someone reverts it is a different matter.
::Dmoz does suck for subjects that don't lend themselves to analysis by enthusiasts (things like bingo, casino directories, etc.), and should be removed. But not to be replaced with this - [http://dir.yahoo.com/Business_and_Economy/Shopping_and_Services/Gambling/Bingo/] - tell me the relevance of any single one of those links to [[online bingo]]????
::Note that BOTW requires a $150/year payment for inclusion and is therefore unsuitable ab initio. [[User:Sumbuddi|Sumbuddi]] ([[User talk:Sumbuddi|talk]]) 03:45, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


See also [[Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Chosmawali]]. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 18:33, 7 August 2024 (UTC)
:::I apologize for creating that link incorrectly, since 2005 keeps reversing every single page and I have to keep creating the links, a mistake is bound to happen. Still, BOTW has a much better selection than DMOZ and it's updated frequently, so it doesn't matter if it's $150/year for inclusion. Many people have been known to bribe DMOZ editors to get their links listed, which will be heavily trafficked by Wikipedia visitors. Other editors won't add anything useful for years on those DMOZ pages. Still, other editors will just refuse to list anything but their own low quality sites, essentially making it impossible for anyone else to have a chance to be listed there. ANYTHING is better than DMOZ and it also helps Wikipedia visitors more than anything.


: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 [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=E-Money_Directive&diff=prev&oldid=1238356385 this] by {{user links|Drutohishab}} 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? [[Special:Contributions/81.187.192.168|81.187.192.168]] ([[User talk:81.187.192.168|talk]]) 19:13, 8 August 2024 (UTC)
:::Also, I think the Wikipedia Administrators need to think more about their policy of giving DMOZ '''automatic unanimous default privileges''' of being listed everywhere on Wikipedia when spam links get too troubling. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.191.163.74|68.191.163.74]] ([[User talk:68.191.163.74|talk]]) 04:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


*{{spamlink|xoompay.com}}
:::Wikipedia Administrators also need to understand that DMOZ is not editable by the rest of the public. If an editor dies for example, the category is essentially locked out from being edited by anyone for years unless one of the few editors with greater authority decides to edit it. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/68.191.163.74|68.191.163.74]] ([[User talk:68.191.163.74|talk]]) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
*{{UserSummary|Eshohor}}
*{{UserSummary|Eidakihesa}}


They'll spam the sites enough, then they are ripe for blacklisting. That is probably the best way to deal with this. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 14:26, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
:The fact that people pay to advertise on a page doesn't bother me. [[WP:EL]] does not actually prohibit pages that contain paid advertisements.
:I think that most of these directories don't need to be listed at all: IMO the articles are better served by no link than by either DMOZ or Yahoo! links.
:When a link is being included, the choice between the two should be made individually, based on what's most useful to the reader. We link individual, specific pages in individual, specific articles, not "DMOZ" on "Wikipedia". A bunch of deadlinks at DMOZ is not preferable to Yahoo!; conversely, a bunch of commercial-only links at Yahoo! is not preferable to a more comprehensive list at DMOZ. Editors need to look at the actual pages and compare them, and quit worrying about whether the link is spelled d-m-o-z or y-a-h-o-o.
:Given this dispute, if a page already contains one or the other, then the fact of the change should be discussed. If there's a problem with an existing DMOZ link, for example, then leave a note on the talk page about exactly why the Yahoo! link is better. This standard procedure should cut down noticeably on complaints and edit warring. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:51, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


: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. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 16:46, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
== Mass Effect External Wiki ==
: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. –[[User:LaundryPizza03|<b style="color:#77b">Laundry</b><b style="color:#fb0">Pizza</b><b style="color:#b00">03</b>]] ([[User talk:LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0d0">d</span>]][[Special:Contribs/LaundryPizza03|<span style="color:#0bf">c̄</span>]]) 20:14, 10 August 2024 (UTC)
::@[[User:GreenC|GreenC]], @[[User:LaundryPizza03|LaundryPizza03]], @[[User:MER-C|MER-C]], it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::You can see [[MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist]] activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- [[User:GreenC|<span style="color: #006A4E;">'''Green'''</span>]][[User talk:GreenC|<span style="color: #093;">'''C'''</span>]] 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)
:::: What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&action=history actively updating it] in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Migration_to_Special:BlockedExternalDomains encouraged] to use [https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist&action=history this list] instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. <b>[[User:Ohnoitsjamie|OhNo<span style="color: #D47C14;">itsJamie</span>]] [[User talk:Ohnoitsjamie|<sup>Talk</sup>]]</b> 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)


== Add a blog from a verified institution to a Wikipedia page ==
The [[Mass Effect]] article has had an [http://masseffect.wikia.com external wiki link] added and removed twice (removed based on [[WP:ELNO]]). In the [[Talk:Mass Effect|talk page]] I discuss why I think the WP:ELNO does not apply to this link and hope to draw further attention to this issue. [[User:Ialsoagree|ialsoagree]] ([[User talk:Ialsoagree|talk]]) 03:02, 10 February 2010 (UTC)


I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Wikipedia page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?
== www.encyclopediamilton.com ==


[https://m.blog.naver.com/gcu2010/221618013170 Global Cyber University] [[User:Fanmadehenecia|Fanmadehenecia]] ([[User talk:Fanmadehenecia|talk]]) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:<small>Copy-&-pasted from [[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#www.encyclopediamilton.com|Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam]], after [[User:Johnuniq|Johnuniq]] suggested the move. --[[User:Bender235|bender235]] ([[User talk:Bender235|talk]]) 20:26, 13 February 2010 (UTC)</small>
{{UserSummary|Jasonmichaelweaver}} frequently adds [http://www.encyclopediamilton.com/ www.encyclopediamilton.com] to [[Milton, Florida]]. In my opinion this site is [[WP:SPAM]], which is why I reverted his additions. [[:User talk:Bender235#External Link, City of Milton, Florida|He opposes]]. Hence we need some 3rd opinions. --[[User:Bender235|bender235]] ([[User talk:Bender235|talk]]) 22:08, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
:I wasn't trying to add it frequently. At first I didn't even understand why it had been taken off. Why are there 3rd opinions needed to put it back but not to take it off? That was one of my first experiences editing in Wikipedia but for the most part I regret it because the website has been very openly called spam and I have been called a spammer. I'm not going to add it back; someone else can if they judge it to be useful. <small><span class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[User:Jasonmichaelweaver|Jasonmichaelweaver]] ([[User talk:Jasonmichaelweaver|talk]] • [[Special:Contributions/Jasonmichaelweaver|contribs]]) 00:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


:@[[User:Fanmadehenecia|Fanmadehenecia]] Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention [[Hwang Hyun-jin]], so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, [[WP:BLPSPS]] likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog ''as a source''. [[User:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|Gråbergs Gråa Sång]] ([[User talk:Gråbergs Gråa Sång|talk]]) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
::[[WP:USCITY#External links|WikiProject Cities/Guideline]] strongly discourages external links other than official city links. On that basis, I would leave the link out. <font color="purple">✤</font> [[User:JonHarder|JonHarder]] <sup>[[User talk:JonHarder|talk]]</sup> 14:49, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
::The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university [[User:Fanmadehenecia|Fanmadehenecia]] ([[User talk:Fanmadehenecia|talk]]) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)
:::@[[User:Fanmadehenecia|Fanmadehenecia]], you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at [[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]].
:::This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of [[Hwang Hyun-jin]]?"
:::[[Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard]] is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a [[goodwill ambassador]] for Korea in the article?" [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)


== Elton John videography ==
:Jason, I'm sorry that you've had a discouraging experience. Wikipedia can be [[WP:EIW|a complicated place]]. You might like to read the advice at [[WP:PROMO]]. It's not all relevant to your specific situation, but you might find some of it helpful.
:Bender, I don't think that adding the link three times (ever) really counts as spamming behavior, especially with someone who probably thought your zero-explanation removal was an honest error on your part. In the future, please try to add [[WP:ES|edit summaries]] for non-vandalism reversions. Just saying, "I don't think this is a good website" might have been helpful, and I'm sure that starting a discussion on the [[WP:TALK]] page would have been helpful.
:I don't think that I would have removed this website. Local history websites aren't prohibited by [[WP:EL|the actual guideline]], and a small town like this isn't likely to have a better or more official history website. (Jason, please keep in mind that "not actually prohibited" isn't the same as "should be included": There are so many websites that are "not actually prohibited" that we usually try to have positive reasons for including them.)
:The article has a bit of a linkfarm, and it should be weeded: The radio websites should probably get pulled, the high school is a deadlink, and surely a single tourist center is enough. If I were going to reduce unwanted links in this article, I definitely wouldn't have started with the "Encyclopedia Milton". [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)


I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in [[:Elton John videography]]. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per [[:WP:EL]]. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
== nemo.nu ==


:@[[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]], there is no ==External links== section in that article. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
[http://www.nemo.nu] has been linked to Egyptology articles and a couple of tank articles, but just a few links. This morning {{user|Ottarvendel}}, evidently its webmaster (see [http://www.nemo.nu/ibisportal/webmaster.htm], has added it to a large number of articles. I've pointed him to our policies on spam and COI, but I'd like to know if people agree this falls under [[WP:ELNO]] as a personal website. Thanks. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against [[WP:EL]] unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. [[User:Canterbury Tail|<b style="color: Blue;">Canterbury Tail</b>]] [[User talk:Canterbury Tail|<i style="color: Blue;">talk</i>]] 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:I've just noticed he's ignored my request to stop. [[User:Dougweller|Dougweller]] ([[User talk:Dougweller|talk]]) 13:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
::I don't see any sign of a note on his talk page; are you sure that he's received the message? [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 02:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
::My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- [[User:Marchjuly|Marchjuly]] ([[User talk:Marchjuly|talk]]) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)
:::They're not banned per [[Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists]], but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::It was a copy and paste error, fixed. The webmaster isn't an expert in the area, and likely fails ELNO #1 at least. I would say it's spam. I've reverted the ones I could with rollback. If someone else finds the links worthwhile, I wouldn't mind them being reinserted on a case by case basis. [[User:MER-C|MER-C]] 12:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


== Computational chemistry ==
Ok that all makes a lot of sense and is very helpful, WhatamIdoing. Thank you for taking the time to explain that all to me and help me out. I'll try to be more careful to avoid confusion in the future.[[User:Jasonmichaelweaver|Jasonmichaelweaver]] ([[User talk:Jasonmichaelweaver|talk]]) 01:22, 20 February 2010 (UTC)


@[[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] and I are having a discussion [[Talk:Computational_chemistry#WP:EL|here]] on whether the external links on [[Computational chemistry]], specifically under the section [[Computational_chemistry#Specialized_journals_on_computational_chemistry|Specialized journals on computational chemistry]] and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under [[WP:EL]]. We would love to have more input. [[User:Dajasj|Dajasj]] ([[User talk:Dajasj|talk]]) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
== Youtube Copyright infringement? ==


:As a comment, I am cross-posting to both [[WT:Chemistry]] and [[WT:Physics]] since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
I'd like to add an external link to Youtube, but I don't yet know the copyright policy well enough. The page to be added to is [[Moi... Lolita]]. The vid contains the original French lyrics plus an English translation, subtitled over a live performance. Does the video still infringe copyright if the original has been modified? My guess is yes, I'm just shooting for a second opinion. And then isn't even Youtube blatantly spreading illegal recordings? Just curious on that last point.
::@[[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]], while this could be argued as a type of [[Wikipedia:Further reading]], it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at [[Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals]] might have some advice for you about how to go about that. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were [[WP:RS]]. I do think that a problem with the [[External Links Remover]], like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. [[User:Ldm1954|Ldm1954]] ([[User talk:Ldm1954|talk]]) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
::::I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
:::::To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate [[WP:EL]]. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, [[WP:BRD]]). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. [[User:Dajasj|Dajasj]] ([[User talk:Dajasj|talk]]) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
::::::I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
::::::In the particular instance, [[WP:ELBURDEN]] says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)
:From my understanding of [[WP:EL]] and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. ''[[User:Choucas_Bleu|<span style="color:#3c4883">'''Choucas Bleu'''</span>]]<sup>[[User talk:Choucas_Bleu|talk]]</sup><sub>[[Special:Contributions/Choucas_Bleu|contribs]]</sub>'' 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)


== 2024 United States drone sightings ==
Here is the link: [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GyMdsdkSg3U Moi ... Lolita Lyrics and Translation at Youtube.com] [[User:SSBDelphiki|SSBDelphiki]] ([[User talk:SSBDelphiki|talk]]) 01:59, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


[[File:Symbol watching blue lashes high contrast.svg|25px|link=|alt=]]&nbsp;You are invited to join the discussion at [[Talk:2024 United States drone sightings #AARO external link|2024 United States drone sightings §&nbsp;AARO external link]]. – [[user talk:Anne drew|<span style="color:#074">Anne&nbsp;drew</span>]] 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)<!-- [[Template:Please see]] -->
:Yes, I think you're exactly right. It looks like a commercial music video that someone has subtitled. There is no indication that the translator has the right to copy, post, or share the video. Please do not link things like this, and please remove such links whenever you find them.
:Thanks for your vigilance on this issue! [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 03:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 03:30, 28 December 2024

    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

    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]
    @GreenC, @LaundryPizza03, @MER-C, it's been about six weeks with the newer 90-day archive rate. Are spam reports getting handled, or do we need to find some new volunteers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:23, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    You can see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist activity is happening mostly OnNoitsJamie. -- GreenC 13:58, 27 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    What do you mean "nobody has updated the blacklist since May?" There are some months with only a few edits, but we've been actively updating it in recent months. BTW, thank you, GreenC, for changing the archival interval; 1 week was definitely too short. Note that in the "Instructions for Admins" section of we've been encouraged to use this list instead, which I'm happy to do for simple additions of one or two sites. For requests with a lot of sites (e.g., spam rings), I'll likely continue using Beetra's automation tools that allow for adding a batch of links in 3 clicks. Hopefully we'll eventually have some tooling for the new lists which makes it easier to add batches of sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:16, 30 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Add a blog from a verified institution to a Wikipedia page

    [edit]

    I would like to add this naver blog which is verifiably owned by a private University in South Korea as it is the only direct source to update the Wikipedia page for Hwang Hyunjin of pertinent information needed for a wiki page. Is this okay?

    Global Cyber University Fanmadehenecia (talk) 08:08, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Fanmadehenecia Your link sends me to this page: https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do which afaict doesn't mention Hwang Hyun-jin, so it's hard for me to have an informed opinion (and last time I looked, google translate didn't do Korean very well). However, WP:BLPSPS likely applies, at least if you mean you want to use the blog as a source. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    The link has been corrected and that does say that if the blog is by a reputable institution it can be referenced. The blog post was made by the verified blog profile of the university Fanmadehenecia (talk) 11:07, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fanmadehenecia, you are on the wrong page. You need to ask this question at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard.
    This page is for questions like "Can I put https://www.kocis.go.kr/koccIntro.do in the ==External links== section of Hwang Hyun-jin?"
    Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard is for questions like "Can I use this blog post to write a paragraph about Hwang Hyun-jin being a goodwill ambassador for Korea in the article?" WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:30, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Elton John videography

    [edit]

    I would like some feedback on the way external links are being used in Elton John videography. Several links were recently removed for COPYLINK and YOUTUBE reasons. The ones that remain are to official websites, etc., but I'm wondering whether they're still OK per WP:EL. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:14, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    @Marchjuly, there is no ==External links== section in that article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:17, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're being put into all the tables in the last column. This is normally against WP:EL unless the external links are the purpose for the tables, which this could be argued as the case here. Canterbury Tail talk 19:47, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    My apologies if my OP was confusing. The links are, as Canterbury Tail, pointed out being used in the tables of the article. -- Marchjuly (talk) 21:24, 18 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    They're not banned per Wikipedia:External links#Links in lists, but if you don't think it's a good idea for any sort of common-sense reason (e.g., you believe that the links don't help or won't be interesting to readers), then you can dispute their inclusion anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:46, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Computational chemistry

    [edit]

    @Ldm1954 and I are having a discussion here on whether the external links on Computational chemistry, specifically under the section Specialized journals on computational chemistry and the link to WebMO at the top, are allowed under WP:EL. We would love to have more input. Dajasj (talk) 15:40, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    As a comment, I am cross-posting to both WT:Chemistry and WT:Physics since I believe matters since the context of both the journals and the link (which provides source credit) matters. Ldm1954 (talk) 15:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ldm1954, while this could be argued as a type of Wikipedia:Further reading, it would be better to create articles or lists for the journals. The folks at Wikipedia:WikiProject Academic Journals might have some advice for you about how to go about that. WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:48, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    For reference, I did not write that list or that article, I only advised the student editor who was left adrift by others (a different issue). I was just disagreeing with deletion of the links to relevant journals where further information on the topic of the article could be found, without first looking for any sort of concensus or (from what I could see) checking whether they were WP:RS. I do think that a problem with the External Links Remover, like other codes, is that they are black-box and don't understand context. Ldm1954 (talk) 19:59, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that mindlessly removing all links is a problem. In particular, that will sometimes remove sources added by new people (who don't know how to format them correctly). If you're going to use something like that, you really have to pay attention to it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:45, 20 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, I don't use this tool mindlessly. I have a list of articles that potentially violate WP:EL. In many cases I don't remove anything. I always check the page before using the tool. And afterwards I check whether I did what I expected it to do. Sometimes this leads me to reverting my edit, because the tool is not perfect (although not a black box). When it appears to be a badly formatted source, I turn it into a reference. With or without the tool, I would have removed the external links on that page (and start a discussion if it is reverted, WP:BRD). I think it is unnecessary to call the edit or my editting mindless. Dajasj (talk) 07:06, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't intend to say that your editing is mindless, especially in this instance, though I can see why you might feel that I had implied that. It's just that one must be careful (as you have explained in detail) and not trust a tool like this too much.
    In the particular instance, WP:ELBURDEN says that when a link is removed, it should stay out unless and until there is an agreement to restore it. I still think the best approach here is to write articles (or lists) for each of the journals. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:45, 21 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    From my understanding of WP:EL and the specific context of this article, I think that while the section about journals makes sense where it is (in contrast to belonging to a "further reading" kind of place within the article), there should not be external links in there, only wikilinks to the journals that have a dedicated page. We can still mention the other journals there, whether they get an article in the future or not. I also do not think these links should be added to the external links section. Choucas Bleutalkcontribs 12:24, 26 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    2024 United States drone sightings

    [edit]

     You are invited to join the discussion at 2024 United States drone sightings § AARO external link. – Anne drew 02:33, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links/Noticeboard&oldid=1265679376"