View source for Wiki143 talk:Spam

{{Warning|To discuss promotional edits of specific editors and articles, please go to<br />[[Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam]].}}
{{talkheader}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav|noredlinks=y}}
|maxarchivesize = 150K
|counter = 5
|minthreadsleft = 4
|minthreadstoarchive = 2
|algo = old(366d)
|archive = Wikipedia talk:Spam/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{archive box|search=yes|
*[[/Archive 1|Dec 2003 &ndash; Sep 2006]] 
*[[/Archive 2|Nov 2006 &ndash; April 2007]]
*[[/Archive 3|May 2007 &ndash; March 2009]]
*[[/Archive 4|April 2009 &ndash; May 2011]]
}}
==Propriety of tag==
Discussion on [[Zach Iscol]] talk page concerning applicability of advertising assertion tag.  <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/2603:7000:2143:8500:E82A:7668:3088:CA29|2603:7000:2143:8500:E82A:7668:3088:CA29]] ([[User talk:2603:7000:2143:8500:E82A:7668:3088:CA29#top|talk]]) 20:41, 21 April 2022 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

== Source soliciting section ==

I was surprised today to read the [[WP:SPAM#Source soliciting]] section, particularly the first two sentences: {{tq2|Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. The current consensus on Wikipedia is that templates, categories and other forms of anonymous solicitation are inappropriate.}}

I have definitely posted messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. I've used the template {{t|refideas}}, which has over 13,000 transclusions. Is this inappropriate? Does the word "anonymous" in the second sentence mean that it's OK for a logged-in editor to do this, but not for an IP editor?

I looked in the archive and it seems the last time this was discussed was in 2020 in [[Wikipedia talk:Spam/Archive 5|Archive 5]] (the thread that begins "The current consensus", which I can't figure out how to link to because of the brackets) by {{u|Glades12}} and {{u|WhatamIdoing}}, with WAID explaining the section was moved from [[WP:CANVASS]] in [[Special:Diff/107387311|2007]] by {{u|Trialsanderrors}}.

Does anyone think this section accurately describes current consensus? If not, should we remove the section, or rewrite it? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 21:56, 10 March 2022 (UTC)

:Since I still don't know what it means, I have no idea whether it describes current consensus.  (When you can't make a link easily, switch to the visual mode and make Parsoid figure it out.  It usually works, and if it doesn't, then we can file a bug report.) [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:03, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
::Aaaand the bug number is now [[phab:T303572]].  @[[User:Matma Rex|Matma Rex]], you might be interested in this bug. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 01:13, 11 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Thanks. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:Anyone object if I remove the section? [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 15:29, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
::Perhaps revise to: {{tq|Source solicitations are messages on article talk pages which explicitly solicit editors to use a specific external source to expand an article. Editors with a [[WP:COI|COI]] should [[WP:COIEDIT|follow Wikipedia policies and best practices scrupulously]] when soliciting editors to use a specific external source to expand an article.}} 
::A concern over 'anonymity' seems better phrased as a concern with a failure to disclose a COI, and particularly [[WP:PAY]], which would also seem to more clearly reflect current consensus. There is a link to the COI main page at the top of the External link spamming section, but it seems helpful to also add relevant links within the section. [[User:Beccaynr|Beccaynr]] ([[User talk:Beccaynr|talk]]) 15:53, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
:::Thats a much better idea, thanks! I will make that revision if no one objects. [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 16:19, 16 March 2022 (UTC)
::::[[Special:Diff/1077879771|Done]], with a few minor changes. Thanks everyone! [[User:Levivich|Levivich]] 18:05, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
:::::Looks good. I'd object to it being removed. I wonder if there are RfCs supporting the previous wording, "The current consensus on Wikipedia...". --[[User:Hipal|Hipal]] ([[User talk:Hipal|talk]]) 18:46, 18 March 2022 (UTC)
== "[[:Wikipedia:Promotional]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Promotional&redirect=no Wikipedia:Promotional]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 October 8#Wikipedia:Promotional}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- from Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 21:35, 8 October 2023 (UTC)
== "[[:Wikipedia:PROMOTE]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]] ==
[[File:Information.svg|30px]]
The redirect <span class="plainlinks">[//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:PROMOTE&redirect=no Wikipedia:PROMOTE]</span> has been listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|redirects for discussion]] to determine whether its use and function meets the [[Wikipedia:Redirect|redirect guidelines]]. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at '''{{slink|Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 17#Wikipedia:PROMOTE}}''' until a consensus is reached. <!-- Template:RFDNote --> [[User:Veverve|Veverve]] ([[User talk:Veverve|talk]]) 10:42, 17 December 2023 (UTC)

== Mind reading  ==

The opening lines say "adding references with the aim of promoting the author or the work being referenced".  This occasionally seems to get interpreted as requiring editors to know the actual intentions of the accused refspammer.  I think we are more concerned about the appearance or result.  That is, if you cite the same source in 100 articles, we're going to be concerned about that because it ''looks like'' spamming even if your intentions might be as pure as new snow. [[User:WhatamIdoing|WhatamIdoing]] ([[User talk:WhatamIdoing|talk]]) 17:48, 26 March 2024 (UTC)