Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Barek (talk | contribs)
83,022 edits
m →‎imuslimz.com: more <s>
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown)
Line 203: Line 203:


== imuslimz.com ==
== imuslimz.com ==
*{{LinkSummary|imuslimz.com}}
<s>*{{LinkSummary|imuslimz.com}}
Spammed by:
Spammed by:
*{{IPSummary|99.243.231.216}} Level 4 warning on August 14 2008.
*{{IPSummary|99.243.231.216}} Level 4 warning on August 14 2008.</s>
*{{UserSummary|Imuslimz}} Level 4im warning on September 9 2008.
<s>*{{UserSummary|Imuslimz}} Level 4im warning on September 9 2008.</s>
*{{IPSummary|62.212.74.91}} back adding the link again today.
<s>*{{IPSummary|62.212.74.91}} back adding the link again today.</s>


Because warnings have been ineffective and user is resorting to IPs request blacklisting. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
<s>Because warnings have been ineffective and user is resorting to IPs request blacklisting. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)</s>

:It's been a week since the request was added and there don't appear to have been any more additions. So I withdraw the request for now. I'll add it back if the spammer returns. -- [[User_Talk:SiobhanHansa|SiobhanHansa]] 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)


==thesufi.com==
==thesufi.com==

Revision as of 21:17, 19 September 2008

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

    Instructions for editors

    There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

    1. Proposed additions
    2. Proposed removals
    3. Troubleshooting and problems
    4. Discussion

    Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

    Completed requests are archived. Additions and removals are logged, reasons for blacklisting can be found there.

    Addition of the templates {{Link summary}} (for domains), {{IP summary}} (for IP editors) and {{User summary}} (for users with account) results in the COIBot reports to be refreshed. See User:COIBot for more information on the reports.

    Instructions for admins
    Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
    If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

    Please consider using Special:BlockedExternalDomains instead, powered by the AbuseFilter extension. This is faster and more easily searchable, though only supports whole domains and not whitelisting.

    1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
    2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
    3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages.)
    4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regular expressions — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
    5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
    6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number – 239654936 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    watchindia.tv

    This site is continuously being added, I have removed it on past ocassions and was added as recently as earlier today. ChiragPatnaik (talk) 04:57, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we have some IPs/users who are placing this please. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:28, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    ChiragPatnaik (talk) 18:48, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks - problematic I agree. Reflecting & looking to list. If they do place the link again once the block expires request blocking & I will link for sure. Regards --Herby talk thyme 19:04, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    oldunreal.com

    Accounts that have re-added the link:

    Links to this website have been repeatedly added by IPs to the Unreal article since the beginning of July when the article was cleaned up. In addition, the following users are the site owners/contributors:

    They have participated in discussions on Talk:Unreal, in which they are not shy about admitting that they asked people from the website to come to sway opinion on Wikipedia. I've already given them ample policy reasons to stop adding the link, firstly because of WP:SPAM, which I believe is justified because the content of the website is not significant enough to meet the requirements of WP:V -- it is not documented by secondary sources. The website's proponents (who are all either from the website itself or related community sites who couldn't help but leave their own URLs also) argue that the usefulness or popularity of the website justifies inclusion, but again there is no objective evidence that the website is either of these things. They have continually reiterated OR-based arguments despite being told, repeatedly, that OR is not allowed on WP, and they apparently refuse to read or accept established policies, believing their own case to be exempt. In some cases the visitors have also vandalized the article, used article space to make personal attacks, or overwritten official game information with information about their own mod. I believe it is an attempt to promote the website or its work on Wikipedia. Ham Pastrami (talk) 01:48, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Note this off-Wikipedia thread:
    and this vandalism.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Before any decision is made here, we should get some consensus among established editors. I have left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Video games#Comments wanted re: disputed link for the Unreal article asking for comments. I suggest centralizing the conversation at Talk:Unreal#Unofficial 227 patch. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:26, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that oldunreal.com is not a reliable source, but I'm not sure if a spam blacklist addition is the right way to go here as it's only being added on a single page. In this instance it might be better to request page protection for a short while. Hope this helps, Gazimoff 11:27, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MyOyVey

    Why has myoyvey been removed from the Yiddish articles, and put on spam block since the website is all about Yiddish--Java7837 (talk) 02:50, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    searchmycampus.com

    I have reverted most of the spam adds by the above IP for searchmycampus.com. IP blocked for 24hrs. They may add the link again. Please blacklist the website -- Tinu Cherian - 08:57, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not as far as I am concerned. I'd rather see what happens after the block expires. If they do repeat it then it should be blacklisted but blacklisting is a last resort. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:38, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok no issues.Considering the style of contribs of the this IP editor, they are likely to try again. Anyways let us wait for the block expire. I reported this here as it was a big pain reverting these all the large scale additions of this website.-- Tinu Cherian - 09:56, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I kinda agree but AGF for now I think. With rollback it only takes a moment? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:15, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sermonindex.net

    While cleaning up the above, I came across this one: sermonindex.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Spammer

    I can't imagine how we missed one that blatant! I cleaned the links. Guy (Help!) 21:59, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    incrediblesushi.com

    Link
    Accounts involved

    Two IPs have done linking sprees of adding this site to multiple articles ... in many cases replacing existing valid links in favor of the site they're spamming.

    The site being added is a WordPress (blog publishing) page, using adsense account #ca-pub-6831750335119417. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 00:58, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request withdrawn ... user has stopped spamming the site. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:24, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    world-snowboard-day.com

    Link
    Accounts involved

    The user adding this link, FORSANS remi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log), is clearly promoting an event that he has founded, as admitted in this diff. He's added it repeatedly to Snowboarding (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) as follows: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and [11]. Some edits are from the account, while some are from the anonymous IP. --Elkman (Elkspeak) 17:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    pokerverdict.com

    pokerverdict.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com - Special:Contributions/87.252.37.237 anon user is one example of single purpose account creating articles to spam the domain, as well as remove reliable sources to insert this domain instead. 2005 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    fulltilthouse.com

    fulltilthouse.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com - a few IPs like Special:Contributions/78.149.195.148 and Special:Contributions/86.26.93.140 have been spamming this useless domain all over the place, including a category and unrelated articles. 2005 (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Today's dozen spam attempts came from Special:Contributions/78.146.241.197. 2005 (talk) 22:25, 28 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another addition was made today even after warning the user who been spamming, this user will replace the legitimate official site with theirs as so diff 9/3/08, the site being added is for the sole purpose of promoting a FTP Referral Code as part of a Affiliate Program but is done in violation of the sites Affiliate Agreement, namely spamming 2.21, nevertheless there is no legitimate reason for this site to be on Wikipedia in it's present form and I would urge the blacklisting of this site. ▪◦▪≡SiREX≡Talk 16:01, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Spam accounts
    Thought it best to list the IP's involved. Three of the IP's have been given blocks. Last activity was today. THEN WHO WAS PHONE? (talk) 16:46, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    wiki.d-addicts.com

    wiki.d-addicts.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    Links to this unnnotable wiki have begun getting more and more prevalent, as both inappropriate "sources" and as external links across various Japanese actor articles. They are beeing added by IPs and registered users, so I don't think an IP block can help. Recent removals include three links removed from Yūya Yagira, 4 instances from Joo Jong-hyuk, 2 instances from Risa Kudō. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of links to this wiki. This is no Memory Alpha. It is not an established wiki for using in ELs, and certainly not a valid source. I feel a blacklist is necessary to address this issue and stop this flood of spam. Additionally, the main site "d-addicts.com" actively promotes the downloading of illegal copyrighted versions of licensed series, which is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. It also has a secondary wiki on fansubs. Not sure if its better to just block d-addicts.com all together or just this problematic one. -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

    There are now 675 links to this site across Wikipedia, with users of the site continuing to add more and more under the false impression that existing links equals endorsement of this site. Something really needs to be done. Manual removal is a very slow process, so if there is a bot that can snag them all, that would be nice. At least one purveyor of the spam, User:Tohru-chan has been identified, but they have done it primarily on a small scale and mostly in trying to spam a single article (which is what brought this site to my attention). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

    Willsoncomputers.weebly.com

    Domains

    Adsense ID: 7909203317229105


    Related domains


    Account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:11, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    parakeetnews.weebly.com

    Spam domain
    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:17, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We have a boat load of other free web hosts listed on XLinkBot - that might be the logical place to list it if we wish to list the entire domain. --Versageek 21:07, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    thejazzchameleon.com

    Spam domain

    Google Adsense ID: 1058176667586160


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:47, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    brookbarn.net

    Spam domain


    Spam account

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:49, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    DISNEYLANDRESORTPARIS.TK/

    Link
    Account

    Another variation of an already blacklisted site (previously blacklisted under disneylandresort-paris.tk). Same method as before - replacing the link to the official site using a misleading edit summary. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:55, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    GRUUVE Inc spam

    Spam domain


    Related domain


    Spam accounts


    Spam article

    Deleted twice:


    Public registration data

    GRUUVE Inc

    333 Cobalt Way
    Sunnyvale, California 94086
    United States

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:48, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    imuslimz.com

    *imuslimz.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Spammed by:

    *Imuslimz (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam) Level 4im warning on September 9 2008. *62.212.74.91 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot) back adding the link again today.

    Because warnings have been ineffective and user is resorting to IPs request blacklisting. -- SiobhanHansa 15:21, 12 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been a week since the request was added and there don't appear to have been any more additions. So I withdraw the request for now. I'll add it back if the spammer returns. -- SiobhanHansa 21:16, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    thesufi.com

    Spammers

    Spammer is now on his second block for adding this link. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 09:18, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Adventuresincardiology spam

    Spammers

    3 blocks, plenty of warnings. MER-C 13:04, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I second this. Dancter (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These three sites are scanslation and fansub sites that completely violate WP:COPYRIGHT in providing illegal copies of licensed anime and manga works (in the case of OneManga, they even directly provide the actual licensed versions, not just fan translations). The anime and manga project made a concerted effort a few months back to rip these links out of our articles, and delete the associated templates. However, IPs and others just slowly add them back over time. Having all three blacklisted so that they can't be added at all would seem to be the ideal way to deal with this issue. Due to the copyright violations, and their being fansites, none of them have any redemptive value anywhere in the the project except on their own article (and even then, much like some other similar sites, we discuss but don't link to). -- [[::User:Collectonian|Collectonian]] ([[::User talk:Collectonian|talk]] · [[::Special:Contributions/Collectonian|contribs]]) 13:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

    oriflame-cosmetics.com

    Link
    Spammer
    Previous spam report

    Over the last two months, this user has been hijacking the company link on the Oriflame article, and replacing it with a link to a retail site that appears to be a distributor for the products of the company. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 13:58, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: After this report, the anon added the URL again, and later the newly created user account added it. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:17, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Update: Noddy has continued to make multiple reverts to re-insert his spam link. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 21:38, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    rewards1.com and prizerebel.com

    The links have no useful purpose on Wikipedia, and are repeatedly spammed on articles due to their referral programs. Dancter (talk) 21:03, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    www.vuze.com

    Cannot add official site for Vuze (client) page under external links without delisting. At least delist it for that page. Thanks! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 03:45, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Deferwhite It was heavily spammed before (see[12]) so de-blacklisting leaves us wide open to further attacks. Suggest requesting the exact page(s) you need at the whitelist instead. -- SiobhanHansa 11:50, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I've done that. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 21:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I've just had a look at the initial report, and I don't see the spamming. Actually, I don't see any spamming whatsoever. I've looked at about half of the edits of the IP's listed, and not a single external link was added by those IPs. Special:Contributions/60.52.74.63 was listed, for example. What on earth do those edits have to do with spamming? They look like helpful contributions to me. --Conti|✉ 11:54, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    My reading of the report is that it's edits like these - [13] [14] [15] [16] - that were the initial link additions that were spamming. The edits by 60.52.74.63 cleaned up those initial edits and the similarity of the IP address -given the edits as well- is an indication that it is the same editor under a moving IP. Which is one common pattern seen in link promotion (and other editing).
    Certainly several of the editors mentioned in the report seemed simply to be adding the official site to the Vuze page - which is unlikely to be spamming. And it seems the problem is with people promoting things published through Vuze rather than Vuze trying to promote themselves on the Vuze page. -- SiobhanHansa 16:56, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I missed those edits, thanks. I still don't see much of a spam problem, tho, only a few articles were spammed. Anyhow, those edits were made a year ago, so I think we can remove that entry now. We could always readd it if someone starts to spam that URL again to those few articles. --Conti|✉ 17:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    telogis.com

    Requesting white-listing for usage in the article Telogis --bapinney (talk) 04:56, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ezinearticles.com

    I'm not really sure why this domain is blacklisted. I wanted to add a link to one of their articles to the entry on Account for profits, only to be informed that the site tripped the spam filter. I was able to find another copy of the article I needed, but I still don't understand why it is necessary to blacklist this whole domain. --Eastlaw (talk) 21:51, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/05#ezinearticles.com, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec#ezinearticles.com links and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar#Spamming through ezinearticles.com to Wikipedia: James B. Allen spam for why I think it's unlikely to be removed. x42bn6 Talk Mess 22:34, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.vincent-van-gogh-gallery.org

    Can you please help us remove the block of the www.vincent-van-gogh-gallery.org and revert the edit on the Van Gogh site? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Webmuseums (talk • contribs) 15:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Blacklisted globally because of m:User:COIBot/XWiki/anderszorn.org. Requesting user is the one who added the links. You need to go here to request unblacklisting. MER-C 04:36, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sexhealthguru.com

    According to Siobhan, we were blacklisted because after a warning was issued to me (user jrsvc), additional links that were considered spam were added to the website by other IP address. These IP addresses belong to employees of my company, and that linking activiy was not intended as malicious or disruptive - my content editors thought they were legitimate additions. More importantly though, none of the people who made those additions had seen the warning issued to me - the edits that were made after the notice to stop were made by people who weren't logged in and therefore never saw the notice.

    I log-in infrequently, and didn't see the warning until well afterwards. Once I saw the notice to stop, I did, and I made sure that everyone in my company understands that they are not to made additional posts to wikipedia. I think our site has value, and offers something different to Wikipedia readers interested in sexual health. We have the largest library of health videos on the web (nearly 1,000 titles, viewed over 150 million times this year, which is about 15x the closest competitor in health video). We are also the only health company that's exclusively focused on providing health information to 18 to 40 year olds, in a media format (video, application, etc.) which really takes advantage of how that generation actually uses the web. Sexhealthguru represents less than 20% of our video library. Our next website, Pregnancy Health Guru, will feature over 100 videos from doctors on pregancy - far and away the largest on-line library of its kind.

    I'd like to think that users will find us to be a valuable resource, and that we'll be added organicall to wikipedia - plus, to be very honest, I really do not want the blacklist affecting my search engine status, which is external to Wikipedia.

    I'd appreciate it if you would recind the black list on sexhealthguru.com I assure you that you'll have no additional problems of any sort from us. Thanks Jrsvc (talk) 12:35, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.modern-war.suite101.com

    While trying to update the number of Russian soldiers killed during the Battle for Hill 3234 I got a Spam notice that a portion of my reference was blacklisted, my reference was www.modern-war.suite101.com/article.cfm/composition_of_forces_at_hill_3234 while the blacklisted portion was www.modern-war.suite101.com I ask that at least the reference not be blacklisted because as it is the article gives inacurate information stating that 6 soldiers died during the battle based on an outdated source, while my reference confirms that actualy 9 soldiers were killed (including their names). Thank you for listening.Guyver85 (talk) 03:29, 10 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    www.LiveAdmins.com

    I am Paul Aucoin, a representative of LiveAdmins here on wikipedia for the proposed removal of the domain LiveAdmins from the spam list.

    Our site appears on this archive::

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1

    We accept our mistake. Due to the in-subordinate behavior of an employee in the content distribution section, our domain was listed in as spamming. We are a successful running business and Wikipedia is a reputable knowledge base, so being black listed here doesn't reflect well on our business. The employee no longer remains with the company and we ensure that nothing like this will happen again.

    The name WebGreeter is owned by LiveAdmins LLC for its greeter service.

    The employee made external links to the posted content and the content was too not on wikipedia's standards. The external link was made to a newsletter on our domain. We request that our site be un-listed from this spam list.

    Paul Aucoin,

    Media Services.

    LiveAdmins LLC.

    Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 02:31, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    LiveAdmins is a self promoting business entity, that does its own promotions utilizing white hat methods, but for this one account, an employee made repeated mistakes. We would like his contributions towards Wikipedia be rejected altogether, i.e. deleted and the name of LiveAdmins be removed from the spam list. The knowledge center of LiveAdmins will be improved with non-promotion content and then if required external links according to wikipedia's standards will be made.

    Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 02:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note regarding reason for request: Paul.Aucoin has posted more to Wikipedia:Help desk/Archives/2008 September 12#re-posted......Yes i would like some information. There are currently no external links he wants added to Wikipedia. Among other things he wrote "We want to improve our standing on the internet and being blacklisted on something as important as wikipedia takes us back on more then a hundred years of clean effort." PrimeHunter (talk) 12:40, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank You for this modification.

    Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 15:26, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined - first, we don't generally remove links from the blacklist on the request of the site owner, second, you have not said where such a link would be of legitimate encyclopaedic use. This is an encyclopaedia, not a link farm or SEO service. If you want a link repository you could try the Open Directory Project which exists for exactly that purpose. Guy (Help!) 17:22, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Well first, i am not the site owner, i am a working in the media services of this company. Secondly it was some worker from this organization because of which we were black-listed in the first place. "you have not said where such a link would be of legitimate encyclopaedic use" could you please elaborate this line because its still a lot confusing. We respect Wikipedia as a knowledge resource and would like to amend all wrongs in all ways possible.

    Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 06:22, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you are mentioning us being listed on dmoz dot org, we already are. The entire idea that started this thing was that we have a novel service by the name of webgreeter i.e. web greeter. We wanted to have a definition of web greeter on wikipedia. The external links therefore caused the problem.We would like to request you now that all content externally linked to Liveadmins domain should be removed and a second chance should be provided to correct or wrongs. Please consider our request.

    Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:00, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Sir with all due respect our conversation is not synchronized. I am just elaborating the thing and according to our knowledge how it went bad. Now we want to fix this, and are asking you to tell us how to fix it. We do not want to have any links in wikipedia at the moment. We want to start over, with a clean slate and then following the correct guidelines make the definition submission again which is still missing from wikipedia. We will do what ever you ask of us to fix this problem. I am still not clear on the line you wrote down in the previous post " but do not address the reasons why we would.". What reasons are these that your are talking about, is it that

    you want to have links to us in wikipedia. or that you want a reason why we should be un-listed.

    Paul.Aucoin.la (talk) 07:57, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • It's like this. Your site was spammed. The spammer was then said to be "an employee" who is "now terminated". Now you come here as a representative of the firm and ask us to remove you from the blacklist. And when we probe a bit we find that what you really want is for the advertisementarticle that was created on your company, to be reinstated. If I had a pound for every time we've been round that loop... The bottom line here is that the reasons you give for your request are all about how removal would benefit you and do not address at all the reasons the site was blacklisted or how removal would benefit us. Sorry, but that's how it is. Wikipedia is not a company directory and not a link farm, we are not part of your company's SEO, we are not here to be part of your marketing efforts. The blacklist feature exists to control abuse, abuse happened, it is being controlled. You say it would no longer be a problem? Maybe you are right, but we've been bitten somewhat too often to take that at face value. Guy (Help!) 10:44, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.israelinphotos.com

    For some reason This site seems to have been blocked, that i've found while trying to add an external link (photo gallery: "israelinphotos.com/gallery2-Augusta-Victoria.htm" to the term Augusta Victoria and it's just one of the many terms on wikipedia that lacks information (mostly pictures) that could be found on israelinphotos.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myariv (talk • contribs)

    information Note:This link was blacklisted at meta after it was spammed to multiple Wikipedias([17]) so cannot be removed here. The request for delisting would need to be made at meta. However given that your only edits other than this request have been to add the link to articles (an action for which you received a message asking you not to continue) it seems unlikely your request would be granted. We encourage editors to add photos for which they own copyright to Commons so they can be used directly in articles and add to generally available free content. In general external links to the site would do little to help Wikipedia in its mission to build a GFDL encyclopedia. -- SiobhanHansa 18:47, 13 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/b14

    It seems that the aboutmyarea domain is on the blacklist and I don't understand why. These are all community-run websites, with local information placed there by local people. If you want Wikipedia to be able to link to community information in entries about UK localities, then the AboutMyArea site is a valuable resource. Other sites like BBC or the local council are all OK for links, so the local community site should be OK too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kings Heath community webmaster (talk • contribs) 18:08, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The problem with this site are not that the information is not suitable, the problem was that there were several accounts whose only goal was to add links to this site (link pushing). If you have specific links which are suitable on specific pages, I suggest you request whitelisting of those specific links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I thought there was also an issue with the links themselves. The prior request to de-blacklist and the only request to whitelist that I could find were both declined. Given the replies on those requests, I would suspect that dmoz may be the better way to link to these sites. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:09, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    petitiononline.com

    Apparently this domain is marked as spam and I'm not sure what the reason might be. I was trying to add (POL)/STOPCB/petition.html to the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bangle page. TIA Stemel (talk) 17:23, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The petitions themselves don't act as reliable sources; if the petition has resulted in any changes, then it would likely be reported in a news service - which would be far more appropriate link to use as a reference. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 17:42, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    members.aol.com

    When I first became a Wikipedia editor, I added very-pertinent "External links" to articles, which were hosted at "members.aol.com/..." - However, they were reverted by a bot (which, by the way, has since been shut down). Also, I noticed that this page contains an "External link" to one of those sites. [18]

    The web page that I want to link to was created by an individual, and was featured at LewRockwell.com, shortly thereafter. It is directly pertinent to this existing Wikipedia article, and would make an ideal addition, to the "External links" section there.

    I also tried to do a search (it was a little difficult) on the global blacklist, and while hometown.aol.com was list, members.aol.com was not. Has this been removed from the "blacklist"? If not, ihow can exceptions be made?

    This web page is a widely-read resource, dedicated to that book. Thanks, Pacificus (talk) 05:17, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    List not working?

    Today I was able to save this edit which included the url for sexhealthguru.com (and also this one which had the url in the section I was editing).

    This URL was blacklisted yesterday as \bsexhealthguru\.com\b [19].

    Is this a problem with the list? The blacklist entry? Or me? -- SiobhanHansa 12:31, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hum - I couldn't save on this page with a full http:// link to that domain. --Herby talk thyme 13:11, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting. I can save the full http:// sss.sexhealthguru.com in my own user space [20] but not on this page. But I can't save http:// www.sexhealthguru.com in either. Is this worthy of a bug report? -- SiobhanHansa 20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Blacklist logging

    Full Instructions for Admins


    Quick Reference

    For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

    • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

    • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
    • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
    • Use within the entry log here.

    Have added a supplement, a general " how-to of sorts. --Hu12 (talk) 10:31, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.

    Addition to the COIBot reports

    The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. "www.example.com (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

    1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
    2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
    3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
    4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

    If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user do add a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. The bots are running on a new database, Eagle 101 is working on transferring the old data into this database so it becomes more reliable.

    For those with access to IRC, there this data is available in real time. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:41, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    poking COIBot

    I notice that sometimes people who are not active on IRC need some link reports. Admins here can now add {{LinkSummary|domain}} to User:COIBot/Poke, when COIBot picks up the edit to that page (and it should), it will put the domains into its reporting queue (high priority, which is, only behind waiting XWiki reports) and create a report on the link(s). The first report should be saved within about 5 minutes, if it takes longer than 15 minutes there is probably something wrong, and it may be useful to add the template with the link again (it reads the added part of the diffs (the right column)), or poke me or another person who is active on IRC personally. Hope this is of help. --Dirk Beetstra T C (en: U, T) 12:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    P.S. Please don't overuse this function, everything still needs to be saved .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:54, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It had some startup problems, but all seems to work fine now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:27, 4 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    aceshowbiz.com

    Why is this blacklisted, seems legit to me? Andre666 ([[User talk:Andre666|talk]]) 13:07, 24 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Kingcomp (talk) 08:07, 18 September 2008 (UTC) I manage aceshowbiz.com, I need to know when did our website spam prolifically ? Did it happen lately or many years ago ? We have many worth suggest article such as exclusive interview with Demi Lovato (Celebrity News, Sep 18, 2008). Please consider unlisted our website from your spam list as there is no such action for years. Many years ago aceshowbiz.com just a small website, right now we've already doing partnership with many big / reliable company. There is no time for us thinking for spamming. Just quality. Please take a visit to our website an consider. Thank You.[reply]

    Um, help...

    I have no idea how to make a request, nor link to my profile, but I am Soulen and can you revert the text I added to the Dragon Ball Z Tenkaichi back in, and just not the link to Youtube?

    Backlog at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

    If you can, please pitch in and help whittle this down. We have editors who've been waiting several months.

    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:44, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Lost the game

    I tried to add a link to www.losethegame.com on the wiki page for the Game. I understand that people may add this link in to spam other pages, but for the actual website of the game, it's perfectly valid. Is there any way to make an exception? PloKoon13 (talk) 15:50, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's not really the "actual website of the game", since it's not an online game and it doesn't even have an official publisher/creator as far as I can see. This site is a site about the game, though it does claim and appear to have objective information about it. At most, specific pages on the site could be a citations for specific content on the WP page. I wonder if there are alternate sources (maybe the site in question provides leads)? DMacks (talk) 16:02, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, gotcha. I'll see if there are other websites around, but I think that one is as close as an 'official' website the game is going to get. :P PloKoon13 (talk) 16:15, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Not everything has to have an official website. Mr.Z-man 16:03, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    As one of the largest 'the game' fansites it might be useful to include www.losethegame.com as an external link on The Game (mind game). - Icewedge (talk) 03:30, 19 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=239654936"