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
→‎viartis.net: inconsistency
Line 237: Line 237:


General Tojo concerns solely Parkinson's Disease related subjects. However, this web page '''viartis.net/publishers/magellan.htm''' instead concerns a biography of the discoverer Magellan. The only link between the two is the name for billing. However, during discussions on Wikipedia, the name of the person listing for billing was conclusively shown to be unrelated to General Tojo. A person listed for billing is often merely an accountant. Such an individual is certainly not an entire publishing company. --[[User:Juan de Leon|Juan de Leon]] ([[User talk:Juan de Leon|talk]]) 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
General Tojo concerns solely Parkinson's Disease related subjects. However, this web page '''viartis.net/publishers/magellan.htm''' instead concerns a biography of the discoverer Magellan. The only link between the two is the name for billing. However, during discussions on Wikipedia, the name of the person listing for billing was conclusively shown to be unrelated to General Tojo. A person listed for billing is often merely an accountant. Such an individual is certainly not an entire publishing company. --[[User:Juan de Leon|Juan de Leon]] ([[User talk:Juan de Leon|talk]]) 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Precisely which Wikipedia rule is supposed to justify the black listing of the web site ? At present, the reason appears to be a very tenuous link between a banned editor who is a Parkinson's Disease biochemist and a publishing company's book by historically known authors that solely concerns the discoverer Magellan. That, even if true, does not appear to come within Wikipedia rules at all. The American Nazi party's web site appears on Wikipedia, as does that of the Klu Klux Klan, and Osama Bin Laden, all of whose ideologies and web sites appear to be completely acceptable on Wikipedia. Yet an innocuous web page concerning a widely available book concerning Magellan, that is on just about every online book retailers web site from Amazon to Barnes and Noble is supposed to be detrimental to Wikipedia readers ! There is a massive inconsistency here that has no rational justification. --[[User:Juan de Leon|Juan de Leon]] ([[User talk:Juan de Leon|talk]]) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


=Troubleshooting and problems=
=Troubleshooting and problems=

Revision as of 11:23, 8 July 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 – 224332059 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

    Proposed additions

    Rihannanow.com

    Can we blacklist the fan-made blog site www.rihannanow.com? There appears to be at least one, if not more, editor(s) attempting to pass it off on pretty much every article related to Rihanna as her "official website," which it is not. --InDeBiz1 (talk) 22:28, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should blacklist it. Masterpiece2000 (talk) 03:02, 17 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Missed this one - sorry. Care to let us have some links etc so that we can take a look. I don't have the time to search it all out right now. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:17, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    mediatraffic.de / fake, unreliable chart site - In the communities very own words

    Per this community ruling - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United World Chart. The article, chart and website are deemed unreliable. Unfortunately, IPS, newbies and fan boys keep re adding the "source" despite community consensus. The site is still used in over 1000 wikipedia article, its going to be a nightmare training people not to use it so it should be blocked. — Realist2 (Come Speak To Me) 02:47, 14 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks listable BUT call me picky there is no way this should be listed until a major amount of the current links are removed. --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 28 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    shadow-arcade.com

    shadow-arcade.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

    Inserted into several articles many times over a long period of time. User acknowledges warnings, says he'll stop spamming - and then reinserts the link. - MrOllie (talk) 17:07, 30 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done: I've warned User:Asifsra about what we consider spamming and that his site is almost blacklisted. You may want to look into it if he posts again. --wL<speak·check>
    He just did. - MrOllie (talk) 19:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And again. Some assistance would be welcome. - MrOllie (talk) 17:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Both accounts now on 72 hour blocks. Out of time for me for now but I will list this domain tomorrow if no one beats me to it. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 18:07, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done now --Herby talk thyme 11:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Fairly obvious dynamic IP spamming. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 10:11, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    andrewleaning.com

    Persistent spamming, caught in the act yet again. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 11:45, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:44, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    digitalvaporizer.org

    digitalvaporizer.org: 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

    Several IP addresses have spammed eternal links on Vaporizer for purely commercial purposes. Furthermore they blacklisted link of manufacturer. Examples of persistent undo's 

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaporizer&diff=222857457&oldid=222811376
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaporizer&diff=222677522&oldid=222621629
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Vaporizer&diff=222088032&oldid=221859481

    —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.139.78.32 (talk • contribs) 15:44, 2 Jul 2008

    Of possible interest would be this. --Herby talk thyme 15:50, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This too.  — Mike.lifeguard | @en.wb 16:17, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    herbs4cures.ecrater.com/ "SEO Hotline 425 605 0665"

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:14, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to the link above, this blackhat SEO spammer was adding text such as "SEO Hotline 425 605 0665" to various articles.
     Done. herbs4cures.ecrater.com is now blacklisted. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:34, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    developersbook.com

    developersbook.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

    Repeated addition of multiple links to domain. Article histories show ELs frequently removed and then replaced. ELs inserted into See Also sections and replacing authoritative ELs and/or likely competition.
    More details at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#spam.developersbook.com
    Caomhin (talk) 11:00, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, looks like spamming & the link theft to me is the final indicator for listing. Thanks -  Done --Herby talk thyme 11:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    indiaeducation.net

    indiaeducation.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

    Spammers

    Egregious IP switching link spam. See WikiProject Spam report. There are also about 150 related domains which haven't been spammed yet - I won't bother duplicating that list here. MER-C 12:20, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Given IP hopping & current activity  Done. --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals

    meshofficechairs.co.uk

    I request that meshofficechairs.co.uk be removed from the list. I was trying to write the article about the Ergohuman. I included the UK and US suppliers. It let me include the US one but not the UK one. So I am slightly confused as to why it blocked it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Niceday2008 (talk • contribs) 09:24, 16 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    See WikiProject Spam Item (1) / See WikiProject Spam report (2) / checkuser/Case--Hu12 (talk) 04:34, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    letterwhiz.com

    I ask that letterwhiz.com be removed from the list. I spoke to the former site admin and he said we were originally blacklisted because he "didn't understand the rules of Wikipedia." He was a junior member on our team and shouldn't have been adding links on the organization's behalf in the first place. He also claims that he believes the Wikipedia editor was being malicious with the removal of our link, though we have not been able to verify this internally. Since we provide free letter templates, we feel a link to our site may be of benefit on Wikipedia pages that discuss writing business and love letters in particular. Thank you for your consideration.Letterwhiz (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, and this request appears to be made by a role account for Letterwhiz.com, as such this is no Declined. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a site--Hu12 (talk) 04:27, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    financemanila.net

    I received an email requesting that financemanila.net be removed from the blacklist. It was added on April 26 by Hu12 (diff). Hu12 has been notified of this although he is on a wikibreak currently so probably won't respond. I'm posting it here because this is the proper venue to request removal. James086Talk | Email 02:40, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Request info. I'll let another admin check for cross wiki (as I am on wikibreak). Thanks James--Hu12 (talk) 04:14, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think the site should be removed from the blacklist (the email was also from the site owner). He/they were spamming persistently and it seems they came back to do some more but noticed the site was blocked. James086Talk | Email 12:01, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on the link placement that took place I do not find a request from the site owner a particularly convincing request I'm afraid. I do not find the site convincing as being suitable for WP either I'm afraid. --Herby talk thyme 12:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    discoverdalian.com

    I am currently living in China, where wikipedia is routinely blocked as you know. The admin aware of my situation "Hu12" is on an extended wikibreak, so I am not sure the proper procedure to make an appeal. I have to use a proxy to access wikipedia, which is a terribly painful process.

    The situation is this: a couple years ago I added an external link on the "Dalian" entry to my web site (discoverdalian [dot] com). While I do offer "for pay" services, my site offers a ton of free public information. It is recognized internationally as the best web site in English for information about the city of Dalian.

    The official city web site is a terrible Chinglish translation, and is designed mostly for foreign investment. I understand that a government asking for money is different from a company. However, my site was a valid and useful external link for a long time.

    Within the expat community here in Dalian, there are many elements fighting for attention. It has become a very dirty business. When my site link and dalianxpat.com were both removed as links from the "Dalian" wikipedia entry, I took this as part of the ongoing attack.

    I undid the deletions, and put effort into keeping the link active in defense. The action of deletion was justified as the removal of spam, but it was not explained or noted with each removal. This happened in a very short time period in early May, and I suspected it was one individual with multiple accounts. The way the matter was dealt with made me feel very confused, because my link had been spam why wikipedia had permitted it to remain for so long.

    I am not willing to accept that my link is spam, but I am willing to concede the point of not having it as an external link.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June_2008#dalianxpat.com.2C_discoverdalian.com

    If you read the entry about the spam black list, you will note that no warning or explanation was given. A user complained, offered little proof in support, and my url was blacklisted. Not even my user account was banned, just the URL. I was never contacted by an admin, given the chance to explain my side, or simply warned so I would have the chance to surrender.

    I am willing to accept the attack of individuals here in Dalian who want to control all information about the city. However, I will not accept the indignity of having my URL blacklisted on wikipedia. My company has enough media citations to justify its own wikipedia entry. Instead of being so bold, I was content with a simple external link.

    If I ever do decide to submit a full entry, I would like the blacklist issue resolved now. Then if that entry is attacked I can defend it on its own merits, and support of wikipedia guidelines.

    There is obvious evidence of warring over the "Dalian" external links. However, being blacklisted without warning is inappropriate and unfair. The issue was contained only to the link, and the heavy handed way it was deleted within a few week period leaves me a bit shocked. It is enough to make anyone defensive.

    After the admin "Hu12" explained the external link situation, I let the matter drop and did not try to re-add mine or any other links. So I was very surprised and hurt that a few weeks later the URL was blacklisted. It was like I was kicked and gave in, so then why push the matter further? I think this is evidence enough of another individual trying to intimidate and make me appear a complete villain.

    If my reactions at any time along the way were inappropriate, then I sincerely apologize. I understand that being an admin is a tough job and I hope that this decision can be reconsidered. I am routinely censored by the Chinese government, so perhaps I do take it personal when people living in a free and open society try to block me even when I try to make amends.

    You will note in the "Beijing" entry - a city somewhat bigger than Dalian - there is an external link to a tour company. Their page has nothing but prices, not even basic helpful tour information. By the standards my link was judged against, this link should be considered spam and deleted. So why does it remain?

    Beijing External links

    1. Beijing tours (Chinese) >>> http://www.chinatourselect.com/Single-City-Tour/City-Tours/Beijing-Tour-Bj-01.html

    I make this point also to show that I have been singled out as a target by other interests, not over time but in a very short period. If this "Beijing" link is an accepted standard, then I would once again press my case to have my external link reinstated. However, at this point it is my wish and request to simply have the discoverdalian [dot] com URL removed from the spam-black list (along with dalianxpat.com).

    Thank you very much for your time, consideration, and prompt reply to this matter.

    Kazkura (talk) 15:51, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    As a result of this post, the above mentioned links from the Beijing entry were removed. I understand this action, however, they were not blacklisted. Therefore, I once again request resolution of the matter I have presented here. I am not asking to have the URL added as a link, only to have it removed from the ban list.

    Kazkura (talk) 00:17, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    readwriteweb.com

    This is one of the top tech blog and news services in the entire United States, and is a Google News source. It has a strong reputation in the tech field, and is an informational site, not a commercial one. I want to use it for a source. VanTucky 22:33, 3 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The listing hinges around this, this and this. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:31, 4 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    freencaa09rosters.com

    This is a site created by the EA Sports NCAA Football community to help combat roster thieves like Brian Kaldenberg that steal the legitimate rosters of others and sells them for profit. It's simply a directory of EA Locker accounts and the web sites to the actual roster makers. By allowing the general public to be victim to Kaldenberg's scam, it jeopardizes the ability of roster editing altogether in the NCAA Football series. Ghettoshark (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    There were so many problems with spamming of simlar sounding domain names that another administrator, Hu12, wrote a regex entry into our blacklist to block links to any domain that sounded like one of Kaldenberg's domains. That's what has snared your domain:
    ncaa2009rosters
    Here's Hu12's entry for this blacklisting:
    Given the complexity and history of all this, I'd like to have Hu12 handle any blacklist removal. Unfortunately, he's away for a while due to deaths in his family, so it may be a little while. Please be patient in the meantime. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:30, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for looking into this. Kaldenberg is, shall I say a [redacted], who we (the NCAA community) has had the displeasure of dealing with through his spamming of links onto numerous forums and stealing our files. So he has been spamming here as well? Although I wouldn't put it past him... Ghettoshark (talk) 20:07, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: I redacted this edit[1] to remove an offensive characterization of an individual. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:02, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    viartis.net

    The web site appears to have been black listed automatically because it had been added to four Wikipedias. The specific page that was added was viartis.net/publishers/magellan.htm However, there are hundreds of web sites that are on dozens of Wikipedias, quite justifiably, because they are the only or the best source of information on the subject. It is apparent from checking the web page - details of a book on Magellan - that it is not SPAM. It is solely a source of more detailed information on the subjcet. There are comparable pages for specific books on Wikipedia, and even entire articles for many books. --Juan de Leon (talk) 15:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Domain info:
    The viartis.net site-owner[2] appears to be the publisher of the book for which you just created a new article:


    For the big picture, see:
    For additional details, see:
    viartis.net was later returned to the blacklist:
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:15, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    General Tojo concerns solely Parkinson's Disease related subjects. However, this web page viartis.net/publishers/magellan.htm instead concerns a biography of the discoverer Magellan. The only link between the two is the name for billing. However, during discussions on Wikipedia, the name of the person listing for billing was conclusively shown to be unrelated to General Tojo. A person listed for billing is often merely an accountant. Such an individual is certainly not an entire publishing company. --Juan de Leon (talk) 07:40, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Precisely which Wikipedia rule is supposed to justify the black listing of the web site ? At present, the reason appears to be a very tenuous link between a banned editor who is a Parkinson's Disease biochemist and a publishing company's book by historically known authors that solely concerns the discoverer Magellan. That, even if true, does not appear to come within Wikipedia rules at all. The American Nazi party's web site appears on Wikipedia, as does that of the Klu Klux Klan, and Osama Bin Laden, all of whose ideologies and web sites appear to be completely acceptable on Wikipedia. Yet an innocuous web page concerning a widely available book concerning Magellan, that is on just about every online book retailers web site from Amazon to Barnes and Noble is supposed to be detrimental to Wikipedia readers ! There is a massive inconsistency here that has no rational justification. --Juan de Leon (talk) 11:23, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    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]

    archive script

    Eagle 101 said he had one running on meta, is it possible to get it up and going here?--Hu12 10:27, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Would be good - Eagle hasn't been working on Meta for a while though & I've not seen anything (there was supposed to be a logging script too!) --Herby talk thyme 12:10, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great news, Ive written a script that can archive this page given the templates that we use, I can create a approved archive along with a rejected archive if people are interested. βcommand 06:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    "Interested" - bit of an understatement there :) Great news - please feel free to help/supply the script. I tend to leave stuff around a week in case anyone shouts or adds more (archives once done should be left alone). How would you handle the "discussion" type bits? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First question, do you want approved and rejected request in separate archives? as for the discussions we could get Misza bot over here for things older than 30 days. βcommand 17:13, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think one archive, seperate sections, like it is currently[3], not sure if the script can do that, but if so, doubt there would be objections in implementation...--Hu12 (talk) 00:24, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    There is no simple way of editing sections using the bot. (section editting is evil). it would just be one large archive. βcommand 00:59, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MySpace

    Is all of MySpace blacklisted? I just had a speedy deletion where a link could not be posted to the original copyrighted source because of a blacklist. Rmhermen (talk) 19:17, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.myspace was blacklisted Per request by Jimbo. what page? --Hu12 (talk) 20:18, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I was able to follow the link posted on the page to get to the myspace page; however, a link to it couldn't be added to the speedy deletion template. This seems to be the opposite of the behavior I would expect from the blacklist idea. Rmhermen (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Blacklisting applies everywhere (including templates), its a blacklist. Next time remove the "http://" or use <nowiki> Tag.--Hu12 (talk) 01:23, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, that isn't how it worked - the link in the article worked fine. It was only when added to the deletion template that it didn't show up at all - just the this link is blacklisted text. Well I haven't been to recreate the problem. Rmhermen (talk) 13:04, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I see what you mean now. The filter will not trip if the link was placed prior to the blacklisting. However if it is removed, re-added or another blacklisted link is added, the filter is triggered. --Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Every year, I have to deal with the individual who posted here making "official sites" for every single actor who appears in the TV series mentioned in that link. I just checked several local articles today, and found the links on them. I even found a link at es.wiki, but the article was a hoax. Now, would it be improper to blacklist all of the links within locally, or could this be a global issue?—Ryūlóng (竜龙) 01:11, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=224332059"