(July 28,2009 Archive)
babynology.com
editcontains information about origins of names given to babies.
I was editing a pre-existing article that included a list of individuals. One person had two "a.k.a."s, one of which seemed to me as unlikely. A google search brought me to babynology.com and I learned that the TWO meanings in one language (which I don't know) were similar to the two meanings in another (which I know beyond simple basic-tourist level). One meaning helped explained something that prior editors of the article had overlooked.
Babynology was truly helpful, in that I had jumped to ONE of the pair(s) of meanings, while overlooking the other.
I made the edit but, to support it, had to use a "satisfice" -- i.e. not the best source. To avoid possibly copying copyright information, I wrote my own blended summary, but I think that the wikipedia English user community loses on this matter; a link to babynology would for some people be educational on this matter.
It doesn't seem too likely that a site such as THIS (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=%22babynology.com%22 - see self-description), which is ranked by Alexa and Quantcast would risk what it has.
Interestingly I think this was the site I was unsuccessful at linking to back in 2008, but in that case I found what I considered a good source and let it go. (The name of THAT site had BABY &/or NAME in its URL).
If there's an ADMIN willing to review this during spare CPU cycles, it would be a service. Dad7 (talk) 19:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)
- See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_2#Adsense_pub-9029159188744814
- See also - MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2008#Live2Support_Inc._spam_on_Wikipedia
- Based on the abuse, I'm reluctant to remove the entire domain. If a specific link is needed as a citation, you can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source (in an appropriate context). Thanks
Defer to Whitelist--Hu12 (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks for responding. I looked, and what I see is this (#1) there is a Google Ad Sense Ad#. Since this web site is about baby names, depending on the baby name being researched, different Google ads might be supplied. To quote from above in this list re "Army-Guide" :
- Quote: It [i.e. Army Guide] was posted frequently in external links, but this appears to have been done by one or two "enthusiastic" users with "good intentions" (providing additional sources on the topic), which perhaps triggered the initial fear that this was a spam link. If you look at the links posted, they were all relevant to the page that they were posted in. If you look at the contributions of the people who posted them, they're on a wide variety of topics, not just associated with the site in question... so it doesn't appear to be for the sake of advertising or a bot ... Finally, yes, this site was posted frequently, but it's an extensive site, so it can be realistically associated with many articles here at Wikipedia.
- If there are many aspects to the Army (including families who move along), why not consider that as the explanation. More people have a name than are members of the army. If a mere 17% of editors writing about someone with a name linked to Babynology.com, then ... Something Pretty Amazing, Methinks ... As for 17%, it's just a number
- (#2) I looked at the Google list per your suggestion. It seems that people around the world use it. Here's one from the other side of "The Pond" -- http://www.circumcisionlondon.co.uk/Naming_the_Baby.html
- (#3) I seem to recall hearing that, just as traveling one way without luggage may seem suspicious to the powers that be, registering a site for just one year ditto. Babynology was created 2003, expires 2012-12-09, over 3 years from now, per http://who.godaddy.com/WhoIs.aspx?domain=babynology.com&prog_id=godaddy
- Thanks for responding. I looked, and what I see is this (#1) there is a Google Ad Sense Ad#. Since this web site is about baby names, depending on the baby name being researched, different Google ads might be supplied. To quote from above in this list re "Army-Guide" :
- While this is not urgent, as I said before re Satisfice, but could you (please) at least tell me what about this site was "spammy" (much of the data in the archive has been deleted, so I was limited in what I could read of what you referred me to) Dad7 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site, as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. This is a case of a company spamming at least 5 of their domains (including babynology.com) under multiple accounts, over multiple pages, despite community disapproval and in violation of multiple policies. The big picture showed someone who abused Wikipedia to promote their own interests. For the same reason the other administrators added this site, I see no indication the spamming will not resume if unblocked. Additionaly, there also seems to be plenty of reasonable alternatives to this site.
Not done. As suggested above, If a specific link is needed as a citation, feel free to request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 08:52, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
- Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site. In this case, as in most cases - spam is defined not so much by the content of the site, as by the behavior of the individuals adding the links. This is a case of a company spamming at least 5 of their domains (including babynology.com) under multiple accounts, over multiple pages, despite community disapproval and in violation of multiple policies. The big picture showed someone who abused Wikipedia to promote their own interests. For the same reason the other administrators added this site, I see no indication the spamming will not resume if unblocked. Additionaly, there also seems to be plenty of reasonable alternatives to this site.
- While this is not urgent, as I said before re Satisfice, but could you (please) at least tell me what about this site was "spammy" (much of the data in the archive has been deleted, so I was limited in what I could read of what you referred me to) Dad7 (talk) 19:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)
