User talk:Barrylb/Archive 1

Big Brother Australia external link

Hi Barry,

Yet another piece on your talk page about a BB Aus external link. I'm writing about the eyeonbigbrother.com link that you removed. I understand that you adhere to the How not to be a spammer page, but I think this site is worthy for inclusion on the basis that it is infact an anti-fan site, covering the criticisms of the show in more detail than can be placed in the Wikipedia article. For users coming to Wikipedia after criticism of BB (which, based on the reaction of the website in question, is a valid hypothesis) they will surely find the website informative and useful. Yes, it is a new website, in the sense that it coincided with the beginning of the series this year, however I would like to point out that

a) The website is completely non-profit and information based: There are no advertisments on the website at all, and users are *not* given the option to sign up. Therefore the emphasis on the website are the articles themselves.

b) In the last 2 days, the website has received over 800 unique visits, and several articulate emails stating the usefulness of the website (can be found on the Your Say area)

I noticed further down on this talk page you stated "If your site is worthy of adding to Wikipedia, then someone else will add it" -- which was not the case with WikiDave. That's fine, but please keep that in mind if you choose to respond to this with the same point. For the record, I am not the webmaster of this website. It belongs to a friend of mine, who writes all of the content. This is more than I can say for WikiDave who has a direct role in the fansite Behind Big Brother and its content, surely violating the How not to be a spammer guidelines, or at best giving precedence to allow for the inclusion to the link to the Eye on Big Brother website.

Of course, it is inevitable that inclusion as an external link will result in promotion for the website, just as it does for the Behind Big Brother website that is there now. However I am arguing for it's inclusion by suggesting that Wikipedia should strive to provide its users with a balanced 'argument', and not link to fan only websites and the link pages that house them. The Eye On Big Brother link would reflect the section of the article entitiled "Criticisms", and give users interested in those criticisms to read further and expand thier knowledge. It would also make the article more balanced, as the website is indeed unique and different to the others that have requested inclusion on this page. I'd appreciate you giving thought to these points.

Thanks for your time. Dust77 07:05, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barry, I'd appreciate a response to this. I posted it on your talk page because I respect your decision, however if there is to be no response perhaps the discussion page on the article in question is more appropriate. Dust77 08:59, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't believe your site should be included on the external links. We already have a link to the major fansite as per the external link guidelines. -- Barrylb 10:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

+ And here Barrylb goes again, removing links that he feels breach guidelines (not official rules), even when multiple others others feel the links are valid. Give it a rest Barrylb. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.167.78.74 (talk • contribs)

If you think I am wrong, please discuss on the Big Brother talk page. -- Barrylb 21:44, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Pulp Mill thing

Sorry last night at 2 in the morning in a dream i added to the Gunns Limited article and added that "and this will create a positive ... (blah) to the economy" it was meant to be "Gunns claims this will help the local economy" or along those lines. I realise it sounds bad, almost as though it was advertising to the pulp mill proposal. Ironically I am against the pulp mill and not really a fan of Gunns. Thanks for fixing it up. Kyle sb

No problem dude. Barrylb 15:42, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

www.insidebigbrother.com (Big Brother Australia Link)

Hi Barry,

I was wondering if you could please refrain from removing the link (www.insidebigbrother.com) from the Big Brother (Australian TV series) page.

I understand that you do not think that it should appear on the page, but I have just started helping with the insidebigbrother website and would like it listed on this wikipedia page for everyone to enjoy. The content on insidebigbrother relates entirely to Big Brother, so there is no reason why it should not be able to be listed. I could understand if the site had nothing to do with Big Brother, but this is not the case.

Wikipedia is all about free speech and free content.

We are hoping that people will enjoy the insidebigbrother.com website throughout 2006, so we would appreciate it if you could please leave the hyperlink on the Big Brother (Australian TV series) page.

Thanks in advance,

203.191.167.40 07:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC) Damien

Damien, I'm sorry but I cannot agree. Although your site relates to Big Brother, Wikipedia is not for promoting new websites or for self-promotion. If your site is worthy of adding to Wikipedia, then someone else will add it.

See this link Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer where it says:

1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.

Please feel free to discuss this further with myself and all other users on the talk page of the Big Brother article if you still disagree.

Barrylb 08:32, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

www.insidebigbrother.com

Hi Barry,

Please visit the website www.insidebigbrother.com. You will find that the website does offer unique content. The website is a fan site of the big brother television program, yet the website keeps getting removed from the big brother Australia links page.

I believe the link should remain on the Australian Big Brother wiki page, as it does offer unique content and unique services (such as the Inside Big Brother Tipping Competition which will start once again when big brother 2006 airs - other websites do not offer such a service).

It is disappointing to see this website constantly being removed whilst other fan sites stay - I can not see a valid reason for this. If the website is to be removed again, please offer a valid explanation. A link is not for promotion, but to offer the content and services of the website to the public.

Thanks,

Dave.

I stand by my previous comments. I have offered an explanation both here and on the Big Brother talk page. Barrylb 04:08, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation

Hi, User:WikiDavid has requested mediation with the mediation cabal, you can make your response on that page. Lets hope we can get this over with quickly! - FrancisTyers 13:30, 3 January 2006 (UTC)

BBA Talk page

Hi, I'm going to archive the talk page :) - FrancisTyers 12:02, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Hey, I've done it, except for the ongoing mediation. How much would you be against having a link to a directory? Could you make it clear on the talk page? Thanks :) - FrancisTyers 12:09, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

It is something I would accept. I really would like to determine if this is one of those "extreme" cases the guideline refers to. I don't like the idea of being forced it into a directory because someone isn't happy we haven't linked to their site. I think the major-fansite link is really useful as it is. Barrylb 12:45, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

BBA again

Hi, can you review the compromise Have a link to BBB and a link to a directory and add your opinion. Thanks :) I realise that you don't want to be forced into it, but I think it might be a valid move as the guy points out, if someone comes in future and tries to linkspam you can revert with impunity as there is already a link to the directory. Unfortunately I haven't found any references for how to define extreme, but maybe the fact that this is in dispute mediation could make it extreme ;) Anyway, I'd be glad to hear your opinion. Thanks, - FrancisTyers 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

australianfauna.com at Fauna of Australia page

Dear Barry,

I am writing in response to the removal of australianfauna.com from "Fauna of Australia" page on wikipedia.

Australian Fauna (.com) has been running for over two years now - this website does not fall under the category of spam. Please take some time to view the website, and if required please check that it is listed in dmoz, google directory, links from government departments, etc.

If you are still unhappy and wish to label the website as "spam", then I would request that a third party be involved to check over this - as I believe you will find that it is not spam and in fact a leader in its area. It has been referenced in printed material like council newsletters and schools, and images that I own I have released freely to magazines with readerships of over 200,000. It is a not for profit website - however it receives revenue from Google Adsense, which covers the cost of web hosting - and any remainder is donated to WWF Australia. Is this why you considered the website to be spam?

You can e-mail me at samschmidtusa@hotmail.com if you want to discuss this further.

I would really like to know why you have classed the website as spam - it is something I do not want the website to be associated with - and something that I would like to fix as soon as possible!!!

Thankyou and Kind Regards,

Sam.

The link has been removed at least one time before by a differnt user [1]. So it has already had the opinion of a second editor. Peersonally I don't feel it fits properly either. --Martyman-(talk) 07:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Sam, it appears you are trying to promote your own site on Wikipedia. Please see this link Wikipedia:Spam#How not to be a spammer where it says:

1. Review your intentions. Wikipedia is not a space for the promotion of products, Web sites, fandoms, ideologies, or other memes. If you're here to tell readers how great something is, or to get exposure for an idea or product that nobody's heard of yet, you're in the wrong place. Likewise, if you're here to make sure that the famous Wikipedia cites you as the authority on something (and possibly pull up your sagging PageRank) you'll probably be disappointed.

I would suggest that if your site is of sufficient value, then someone else will add it to the links. -- Barrylb 08:24, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi Barry, Sorry about the misunderstanding, I did not know you could not add your own web site to wikipedia. Sam.

Please see Talk:Fauna_of_Australia#Mediation --Fasten 19:14, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Affiliate marketing

Thank you for removing the external links in Affiliate marketing. I have been fighting this one solo for two weeks now. Monkeyman^(talk) 14:01, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

This isn't a War Monkeyman. It's called debate or discussion, the only democratic means available here. "Vote" and "majority rule" on the other hand do not. Live with the fact that people that have interest in Wikipedia and are willing to sacrifice their spare time to contribute in areas of their expertise will not always agree with your view on things and will question your actions and point of view.

I have no clue about Biology and would not touch any Article there and delete stuff. I don't have the ability to argue with Biology experts, PhD’s, professors about good or bad content, because I don't know anything about it. I don't know which sites are good and important and why and which are not. I can not just make a decision based on "gut feeling" and if I like the colors of a site or not.

I will stick around. Live with it. I am always willing to discuss things on a professional level (we outgrew kindergarten). And because we are adults, it should be possible for us to solve our problems like adults. You know where to fine me. You are always welcome there. --Roy-SAC 19:58, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Help on Click fraud please

Can you lend a hand on the Click fraud page? I've got an editor (User:Visualize) who keeps readding a commercial link and is removing content from the talk page. I would welcome your objective review of the situation. Thanks. (I've also left this message for admin GraemeL but he appears to be on vacation). Monkeyman^(talk) 16:07, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Social anxiety

I've commented on your recent edits, here. Gflores ^Talk 20:10, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

External links sub-directories...

Hey Barry...I created some boilerplate on the Bipolar disorder page to accomodate both the directory linking format, and to acknowledge the Open Directory Project. The template, though, is now redundant. Do you think you might look at what I've done, and either edit the template, or come up with another solution? Thanks. --Mjformica 22:34, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I cleaned up what you had done. I should let you know that the Open Directory Project is not run by Wikipedia though, it is independently run. I'm not sure that we need to add any extra description, rather than just have the link, but I have left it there. Barrylb 07:07, 3 March 2006 (UTC)

Chemical imbalance theory

I misspoke...well, mis-wrote. I had intended to portray what you have conveyed, and did not edit the visual link to "chemical imbalance theory" appropriately. Thanks for cleaning that up.

As for putting references in the Clinical depression article, I totally get your position. Several of the administrators have asked me to clean up the psych pages (if you look into the history of my User page, you will see why...I took it down consequent to on-going personal and professional attacks by a few disgruntled contributors), and, as there is a tremendous amount of apparent POV, as well as non-evidence-based contribution, I am endeavoring to correct that with evidenced-based editing. Clumsy, but effective.

And, on a personal note, I expect we are ging to be interacting a great deal. I would appreciate it if your replies appeared on my talk page. Thanks! --Mjformica 11:45, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Smoking cessation

Hi,

I think it's a good thing you are vigilant against linkspam. But you should realize that not all links are spam. The sites I quote (especially www.whyq uit.com - this is a small encyclopedia in its own right) are excellent information for people wanting to know more, they also serve as references for the article.

It would be nice if you state your problems against them, then we can discuss. But in the mean time, please refrain from removing them from the article.

Thanks! -- Beck 21:56, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

There are many quit-smoking sites on the internet. This one is not particular better than any other - it is a website of one particular individual and is biased towards particular views on quitting. It is not particular authoritative. I can't see any reason why this particular site deserves to be linked. I also cannot see why you would have any reason to keep the other 'quit meter' sites that are obvious link spam. -- Barrylb 22:18, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

While indeed I do not care whether the quit meters stay or go, I do care so about whyquit. You might want to review the site, it is a good site to keep linked; easily better than most other quit sites out there. It also is not just an individual, it has organisation and community. And, maybe the best argument for keeping it in, it serves as a link out for people wanting to know more about cold turkey (cf. the modalities paragraph).

As for the quit meters, while they are usefull, I can see your point. I disagree with keeping them out, but won't insist on keeping them in. -- Beck 22:37, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave whyquit.com on there for now but I am concerned about what will happen to the links section, as it may become infested with all kinds of links for the various techniques. Barrylb 13:26, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

External links

[2] "External links - healthyplace.com is pharma industry sponsored - removed both links" I don't know where you got the idea that any site that has commercial sponsorship is automatically linkspam but it's an incorrect idea. -- Antaeus Feldspar 23:01, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with Antaeus here. Sponsorship alone does not make a link unsuitable, although heavy advertising and absence of authoratitive content does make one wonder. JFW | T@lk 23:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

This particular webpage (healthlyplace) was added to several related articles by a single IP see here. Plus the article has quite a few ads. I think it fits a the definition of spam but I will leave that up to the consensus. Monkeyman^(talk) 23:21, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

it's obvious he's got a thing against the pharmecutical industry or something. review his edits. he has blankly removed all external links on pages even when legitimate ones exist, such as http://panicdisorder.about.com and http://www.adaa.org see http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anxiety_disorder&diff=42415337&oldid=41950009. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.62.32.167 (talk • contribs)

Please see this page: http://www.healthyplace.com/advertise/sponsors.asp. The page plainly tells me that this is a site setup to benefit pharmaceutical companies. Thus I think that classifies the site as a "commercial link". As a direct consequence of that, another problem is that the information on the site is highly likely to be biased towards the products and services offer by the sponsors. And I did not know until Monkeyman pointed out here that the site was spammed onto multiple articles in January, which troubles me greatly.

Further, the "blanking" you are referring to is not a "thing" against the pharmaceutical industry. I removed the links (and I think only healthyplace.com is pharma related) because I don't believe we should have any links on that article. It is such a vague topic that it is hard to know what types of links should be there, and it is a magnet for all kinds of rubbish. Not every article needs links. I am not too bothered by that though, and my main concern is healthyplace.com -- Barrylb 02:44, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

There are a few 'red flags' about healthyplace.com:

• According to http://www.geobytes.com/IpLocator.htm the IP address that added links to healthyplace.com (67.9.115.64) is located in San Antonio, Texas. Entering www.healthyplace.com into the locator service reveals that is also located in the same city. This is a possible indicator that someone closely affiliated with the site has tried to promote it.
• Their 'Contact us' page is merely a direct link to an email address info@healthyplace.com. There is no phone number to call, no fax number and no physical address or mailing address. Why not?
• A WHOIS check on the domain name reveals only a PO Box address in San Antonio and an invalid phone/fax number 999 999 99999.
• At http://www.healthyplace.com/site/editorial_policy.asp it says "HealthyPlace.com, Inc. is a private corporation..." & "funding for the HealthyPlace.com Site comes from private individual investors" & "We do sell advertising to outside companies and organizations". So, why have they established this site? It appears to be a commercial profit-seeking enterprise that seeks advertising to make money. There are usually two or three advertising banners on every page.

Do we really want to link to a site that was primarily set up to sell advertising? They have no interest in health issues, only making money. To use them as a reference or as somewhere to send people for further information or help seems inappropriate. Surely there are some better sites such as well-established non-profit organisations or government sites that don't have the conflict-of-interest problems of healthyplace.com and may have a real interest in health issues. We can do better.

-- Barrylb 12:04, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

"Do we really want to link to a site that was primarily set up to sell advertising?" If the content is otherwise acceptable then the answer is yes. Because that is the business model of just about every newspaper in America and we don't just accept them as external links, we accept them as references. The New York Times is not funded by its subscriptions; it is funded by advertisers who trust that the ads they pay the NYT to run will be seen by a large number of readers who have come to read the content. "They have no interest in health issues, only making money." I'm sorry, but your prejudice against 'the pharma industry' is not a point of policy. "Surely there are some better sites such as well-established non-profit organisations or government sites that don't have the conflict-of-interest problems of healthyplace.com and may have a real interest in health issues." Hmmmm, let's see, like the Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration? Obviously not, since you removed that link too. As for the "conflict-of-interest problems of healthyplace.com", please explain to me how an article which does not mention pharmaceuticals in any way, appearing on a site sponsored by 'the pharma industry', represents a "conflict-of-interest". Clearly, it doesn't; it represents instead your own private prejudice against the pharmaceutical industry, one that you also show with your phrasing that another site "may have a real interest in health issues." If you have evidence that healthyplace.com does not have a "real" interest in health issues, then show that proof in order to get a consensus. If you do not have evidence then what you have instead is prejudice, and prejudice may not be substituted at your discretion for policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 16:52, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I have already given evidence as to why healthyplace.com does not have a real interest in health issues. Read my comments again. Your comparison to newspapers is not valid because newspapers - especially ones like NYT - have established credibility and they have accountibility (editors, journalistic standards, professional ethics, industry organisations, and laws to abide, and even a phone number to call them) and they have something called editorial independence. Healthyplace.com is not likely accountable to anyone. I also question Healthyplace's editorial independence. I believe the content on their site is closely linked to advertisers. Look at their sponsorship opportunities page at it looks like they are very willing to do whatever you want. Look at http://www.healthyplace.com/communities/depression/serious/index.asp. It says 'funding provided by Wyeth'. So basically they have placed editorial content because an advertiser wanted to. My problem here is not with pharmaceutical companies, it is with healthyplace.com's credibility and that they appear to be open to do whatever their advertiers want them to do. My edit summaries regarding 'healthyplace.com is pharma industry sponsored - removed' were a shorthand way of saying all that I have said here.

And lastly, your reference to me removing a link to samhsa.gov is quoted out of context. I removed the entire set of links of the Mental health article because it was a complete mess. -- Barrylb 00:37, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, what it says is "This content was created by HealthyPlace.com under its sole editorial control. Funding was provided by Wyeth." (emphasis added) So, basically, you didn't just read the sentence "Funding was provided by Wyeth" and leap to the conclusion "oh, they must be a bunch of whores who'll say anything for the right price", you actually read two sentences, one of which directly contradicted the conclusion you wanted to leap to, and surpressed that one, asserting 'Oh, well, clearly because they receive funding they must be placing their editorial control in the hands of their advertisers!' and trying to present this as a reasonable deduction from what you can read at that page instead of a direct contradiction of it. Look, if your personal prejudice is that the big bad pharma industry is a crawling corruption twisting everything it touches and everything said by them or by anyone who has accepted a taint on their soul by accepting their sponsorship should be assumed to be a bald-faced lie even when it has nothing to do with pharmaceuticals -- fine, that's great, hold that as your opinion. But don't try to substitute your opinion for policy. -- Antaeus Feldspar 02:46, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Wrong! The whole reason for the page is that Wyeth asked for it. And I am well aware of their claim about "This content was created by HealthyPlace.com under its sole editorial control" but just because they say it, does not mean it is true. Look at actions, not words. -- Barrylb 03:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Panera Wireless

I admit that I missed that there was an existing sentence in the Panrea Bread article that mentions wireless, however the fact that the restaurant is the leading free WiFi provider in the US is quite notable so merging my additions with the existing sentence in the article would have been more appropriate than reverting my work. I will now do that, please do not revert it. dsemaya 02:29, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

That sounds a bit too much like advertising for me and I don't believe it deserves the significance you are giving it. I deliberately did not merge the information for that reason. The previous comments about wireless access are all that we need. I will be reverting. Barrylb 03:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

This is most certainly notable and should be included in the article. The fact that such a large national chain offers this service is unique and it exemplified by the fact that they are the largest such provider. It is also notable because until the article was published, the common conception was that the largest free wireless provider was some sort of ISP or wireless company, but instead it is a restaurant chain. I'm not sure how this sounds like advertising, it is stating facts that make the company unique and notable. That is the point of wikipedia. To see further discussion on this topic, to show its worthiness, look at this large slashdot discussion on the topic. If you want to rephrase the sentence go right ahead but removing it is not the correct action, I will be reverting back to my edit. I'll even rephrase it for you, but again, please don't revert it as that would be detremental to the completeness of the article. dsemaya 04:41, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Shy United Link deletion

I noticed you deleted two links on the shyness page that led to the website Shy United and then to the forum associated with it. I don't think they are spam like you said. The main Shy United page might be a bit useless and I don't mind you deleted that one. But the forum has over 1500 users and is a really good place for shy people to discuss things and is a great self-help forum, not a spam site. Heres the link to it and I am going to add it back to the shyness page.

http://shyunited.proboards15.com/index.cgi -- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bodhi395 (talk • contribs)

The links section on Shyness is out of hand and needs cleanup. Your link is unlikely to survive that cleanup. -- Barrylb 03:32, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

re: Bipolar disorder support groups

Could we still delete Bipolar disorder support groups? Someone has merged the content and redirected it to Bipolar disorder but I don't think we need it at all. -- Barrylb 01:25, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Barrylb. I see that you've unmerged the list from Bipolar disorder and moved it to the talk page. Content-wise, I'll let you and User:Iapetus, who did the merging earlier, decide what to do with the list. I think I'll let Bipolar disorder support groups stay as a redirect. This way, Talk:Bipolar disorder support groups get to stay as well. In case someone re-creates a similar list, you can quickly point to this talkpage and say that we've talked about this already and we don't want such a list. Okay ? Thanks for reminding me on this issue. -- PFHLai 06:23, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

Kim Booth

What is your source for his re-election? That's not what the press are saying. Ambi 06:21, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Wonderful. I'm absolutely stoked - I thought he was gone for sure! :) Ambi 08:53, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Target (Australia)

Hi, User:ThomasTechnologies has just added himself to WikiProject Spam but wants to add links to his site at Target (Australia), Target Corporation and Scrip. Perhaps you could add some comments to Talk:Target (Australia) if you agree with my decision? I don't think he has got the idea yet. Thanks -- Barrylb 06:49, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you ... sorry I wasn't around sooner but fortunately his additions appear to have ended. His link addition isn't spam but it really doesn't add any content to the article. A collection of gift card images? I don't get it. How does this contribute to the article? Will keep an eye out. Monkeyman^(talk) 04:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Tas electorate links

Hi Barry - just noticed you fixing up the electorate links - just wanted to say thanks for helping to clean up my mess!! -- Chuq 06:33, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

MyIdolSpace.com

Copy of email sent to me on 19 April 2006 by User:Divadome. See American Idol:

Hello

For some reason you felt it right to discredit MyIdolSpace.com without merit

The growing problem of fraud on MySpace is huge, and we have made significant progress curbing the fraud of all American Idol contestants.

The only people listed on MyIdolSpace.com are confirmed official and authorized pages.

You may contact any of us here: http://www.myspace.com/myidolspace

We have every right to be on Wiki for the efforts we have put forth, and this is not a discussion.

Thank you very much for your attention, and leaving our contribution alone.

See response on User_talk:Divadome -- Barrylb 00:58, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Copy of email sent to me on 23 April 2006 by User:Divadome:

You have WAY too much time on your hands, troll

Get a life.

You are nothing. Leave these OFFICIAL pages alone!

WikiProject:Spam Opinions and Facts wanted

Hi Barry, I am looking for Wikipedians that are interested in the topic about Link Spam to express their opinion about this. After checking some other Talk Pages and Votes I think you seem to be one of them :)

Talk at at WikiProject:Spam Talk Page: How to save hundreds or thousands of hours by spending just a few

Here is the original Article at my User Talk Page. Thank you very much. I am looking forward to hear your opinion on it and hopefully also some facts about the primary means and the extend of the link spam problem which I am still looking for. Something that can be meassured/quantified , estimated and afterwards validated and evaluated. --roy<sac> ^Talk! .oOo. 06:14, 19 April 2006 (UTC)