Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 12:42, 24 November 2007 (→‎amityisland.net: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Protected MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist is a page in the MediaWiki namespace, which only administrators may edit.
To request a change to it, please follow the directions at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist.
Shortcut

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist only affects pages on the English Wikipedia. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. Any developer may use $wgSpamRegex, another method to prevent the addition of spam links. However $wgSpamRegex should rarely be used.

See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

Dealing with requests here

Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks
  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? Is there a Spam project report, if so a permanent links would be helpful
  3. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex - the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
  4. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. Request should be left for a week maybe as there will often be further relatede sites or an appeal in that time.
  5. 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 - 173467057 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.

Those interested in contributing to this page may find it helpful to watchlist this page or create their own if they want to watch other pages as well. It effectively watches threads rather than pages.

There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. they are Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, and Discussion. Each section will have a message box explaining them. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Requests which have been completed are archived. All additions and removals will be logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|173467057#section_name}}

Proposed additions

durangobill.com/JasonGastrich.html

This link was brought to meta, but they suggested listing it here and posting the meta conversation. Here it is:

Hate site solely exists to discredit one person, spammed across Wikipedia on various pages to do the same. No redeeming value. --Let You2 23:58, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
Should this one not be listed at en wp rather than globally? I see the disruption for sure but I'd get that in the local blacklist asap personally. See if you can get some action from an admin on en wp, if not maybe nudge me again but it is outside what should be on Meta in my opinion, cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
Herby, I'm sorry, but I'm unfamiliar with the process and don't know any admins on en wp. I agree with you about the disruption, though. Could you help? Perhaps you know an admin or something. --Let You2 21:15, 21 October 2007 (UTC)
You need to list this request here (maybe copy what is here almost - ie A. B.'s bit) that should get you somewhere I hope, cheers --Herby talk thyme 07:37, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

--You and Me3 17:35, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the information I posted on meta in response to this request; it's what Herby alludes to in his post quoted above:
Jason Gastrich has a long history on en.wikipedia:
There are unrelated durangobill.com links on other wikipedias, but only en.wikipedia has links to the durangobill.com page criticizing Gastrich. None are in article space; here they are:
Also see this list of domains owned by Jason Gastrich; some of them have been blacklisted on meta:
--A. B. (talk) 17:51, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this one still a current issue? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Was wondering the same, probably could be archived if issue has ceased or been resolved elswhere..imho--Hu12 (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Linkspam from vandal Wayne Smith AKA Universe Daily

  • www.robertgbarrett.com
  • www.myspace.com/wendimurdoch
  • www.opinion.com.au/5201_is_wayne_smith_who_bought_bindiirwin.com_a_cybersq.htm

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily

Yale s (talk) 22:49, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Monitor it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 23:54, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both those sites belong to Wayne Smith and he has repeatedly posted them on pages. His Long Term Abuse page has this notation:

Instructions: Block on sight and revert Yale s (talk) 01:16, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


bressimarkets.com

Persistent spammer Christopherbressi (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) (now indef-blocked) has been adding commercial links to the website for what appears to be his or his family's chain of supermarkets to various articles on cured meats (Salami, Sopressata, etc.) Has also edited as:

A link to this website has no place on Wikipedia, and the user has been warned and blocked repeatedly. android79 22:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

yep - no question to me &  Done, thanks --Herby talk thyme 07:40, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thenettimes.com

Links added from multiple IPs and single- or low-edit accounts.

and many more. Gimmetrow 21:05, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that this one is an issue. Was it all on the 21st? I'm inclined to see if they try again, in which case I'd list it straight away I think but it is possible that they have got the message? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

amityisland.net

see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#amityisland.net
Accounts

Lostshark (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) site owner[1]File:JAWS Lake.jpg
60.234.215.101 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →cross wiki de.wikipedia.org
86.146.6.106 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
58.108.161.195 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) →cross wiki de.wikipedia.org
81.151.117.95 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
86.151.253.216 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
agressivly spammed "Tribute site", using differing ips and WP:SPA spam only accounts. several x-wiki additions, appears to be focusing on en. for now--Hu12 (talk) 12:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I'll log it a bit later. If it is cross wiki let me know and I'll go to Meta with it - cheers --Herby talk thyme 12:42, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals

www.belarussolidaritycampaign.co.uk

This was blacklisted form the Alexander Lukashenko page by an administrator, who termed the site as 'having no content' It clearly does. Now, if the link is deemed to be unsuitable then it ought to be discussed on the talk page. In my opinion the link in question, whilst granted is still a site under construction, is still a site that has relevance to the discussion of Lukashenko and Belarus. I propose that it be removed from the blacklist, so it may be linked to in the future if agreed in discussion on the talk page, but its dismissal by one administrator (zscout370) is at least a stifling of debate and objectivity, and at worse is censorship.

The website was just established and it has "Under construction" notices on the main page. The links that work are stating the goals for the group and begging people to join. This is pure linkspam, thus why I added it to the black list. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 06:40, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the reply! The point I'm making is that the site is being updated and now does have information too. I concede that at the moment the site is not complete and as such is not worthy being a part of the current external links, however the blacklisting means that when that changes, or if wikipedia wishes to link to an article there in the future this will not be possible. I politely ask that the site be removed from the blacklist, (and also promise to refrain from adding it to the current list of external links).

--Belaruski 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The blacklist isn't permanent and I don't intend for this link to stay here forever. But right now, I think it should stay. I will go back to the site, lets say, weekly and look at it. But we get so many external links about Belarus and we got so many campaign sites from the UK, Poland that me and others just remove them all. I am starting to clear out other Belarusian links too, so your site isn't the only one seeing removal. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 18:46, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Any chance the link can be un blacklisted now? We recently held a demo in London, are a legally recognised body with international members and would like to set up a page of our own. A bit embarrasing when we can't link to ourselves! Thanks.--Belaruski 21:42, 8 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done per Zscout370--Hu12 15:59, 9 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Excuse me, but why not?--79.65.196.5 21:05, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reference data:
  • Accounts adding these links:
--A. B. (talk) 21:32, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting guidelines if they are applied accross the board. However if you will look at the site in question and argue that none of the articles are relevant, or may in the future be relevant as external links then you are in effect allowing censorship on wikipedia. I agree that it is very easy for just anyone to link to themselves on Wikipedia, but the site in question is clearly not spam. --79.65.244.108 22:37, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I removed it from the blacklist, but I still do not think the site should be added to Wikipedia. We get many Belarusian campaign sites and this is just one out of many that look and feel the same. User:Zscout370 (Return Fire) 13:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It appears A.B. was correct and they only wanted it removed so they could spam it again. See [2]. Perhaps it could be added back. This isn't just spam, it's POV pushing spam. -- SiobhanHansa 12:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well rest assured it won't be added again. Wikipedia is clearly only as good as the individual with the biggest axe to grind and the most time on their hands. The link I posted is no less or more POV than the article or links from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Day_of_Solidarity_with_Belarus But clearly objectivity is not what you're after. I would propose that the "not to be confused with" bit be reapplied as it's a point of clarification. But feel free to keep the argument one sided if that makes life easier for you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Belaruski (talk • contribs) 14:53, 11 Nov 2007

Per the comments above - closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 19:43, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The link has already been removed by Zscout370 in September (see [3]), it possibly needs adding back. Though perhaps we could take Belaruski's word that the organization won't be promoted on Wikipedia again, and simply monitor the link. -- SiobhanHansa 13:16, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'd certainly be in favour of monitoring this I think, call it "closed" anyway but with eyes open I guess, thanks --Herby talk thyme 20:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm

This website is used by countless people who use SQL. This is a Tutorial for those who are beginner's to SQL and a reference to the experts in SQL. This tutorial explains the SQL concepts in detail with appropriate examples in a simple manner.

Adding this website in the SQL sections of the Wikipedia, will help the programmers to learn SQL better and write better sql queries. Please remove this website from the list of blacklisted websites and help this website to be reached by more programmers who visit Wikipedia.

Few of the pages I want to use this link are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sql http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insert_(SQL) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Select_SQL http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Join_SQL --206.218.218.57 20:47, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm the one who added it... if anyone can confirm that the malicious scripting problem effecting beginner-sql-tutorial.com has been addressed, I've no objection to removing it. It was blacklisted due to a virus issue and if that has not been cleared up I'm not comfortable having it linked here.--Isotope23 talk 20:51, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
See the discussion below about the blacklisting of this site due to malicious code. --A. B. (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined I hope I'm not overstepping the bounds here, but I just confirmed the continued malicious script execution attempts on that site with a colleague. It should not be delisted at this time and if the Anon is a good faith editor who isn't trying to infect other people's machines I suggest they do a virus scan on their machine.--Isotope23 talk 20:57, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

In this case, the site should also be blacklisted at meta ASAP to protect the rest of Wikimedia + other MediaWiki projects. I've got to run -- can someone else get this going? Thanks, --A. B. (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
 Done on Meta but could do with a "request" in due course! Cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, I just got done adding a request.--Isotope23 talk 15:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it does mean that you can remove it from here if you want. No idea what the view/policy is on dupe entries tho? Thanks for the "request" I'll go log it shortly and if you bump into anything else like that you know where I am if I can help. Sorry I missed it before - been tidying up! cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:54, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know, there is no policy on that (though AB may know something I don't). Might be worth having a discussion on that.--Isotope23 talk 14:36, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I think exploring the possibilities would be good. On Meta we are covering 700+ wikis and (I think) 2/3000 other sites using Mediawiki so "dangerous sites" would be appropriate there (IMO). (There is a sense in which I prefer to avoid the word "spam" in favour of external links as the usual spammer external link placer rarely see the links they place as spam.)
"Dual" listing is safe but the page gets long (& slow to load!) --Herby talk thyme 14:40, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

***IMPORTANT REQUEST*** The problem with the webpage was without my knowledge. I have fixed it now. Please check the website and remove from blacklisting. Thanks, administrator

----206.218.218.57 (talk) 16:19, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

At present the answer is definitely no. That is twice the site has been compromised. If you are unable to properly control the content and security of your site then we will not remove it from the list I'm afraid. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:27, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. While I believe this is not the work of the site owner, I think that we need to see some more detailed information about how this will be avoided in the future as it has already been fixed and happened again.--Isotope23 talk 16:38, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I deleted the infected page and added a new page for the website. No idea why the problem still exists. Please let me know what was the problem with the website. Is the problem with the technical content or is it IFrame - Exploit problem, please let me know what would be a possible solution. Rest of my webpages are good expect for the index page. I am trying to find a solution for it, so that i can provide a good website to wiki visitors. Thanks, administrator--206.218.208.57 (talk) 17:54, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was the same malicious scripting as before (i.e. IFrame exploit). link scanner shows you've cleaned it, but given that you've cleaned it once and it was exploited again, I'm not comfortable removing the blacklisting quite yet... especially considering that it appears to me you don't know the root cause of why this is happening yet. It has nothing to do with the content of the site, I think we'd just like some evidence it won't happen again.--Isotope23 talk 18:01, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hi, I have fixed the problem with my website. Now the default link of my site is <my site name>/sql.htm , i have updated the link above. I had a chat with my service provider and got the workspace cleaned up and i have uploaded new pages. i checked all the pages in link scanner and found none of the pages are infected now. Earlier i was using index.htm as the default page which was infected, now i have removed it and i am using sql.htm as the default page. Please check the link and whitelist it. i will be using <my-site-name>/sql.htm while adding the links in the wiki pages. Thanks,administrator.--65.215.113.131 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, and in this case, you are the founder administrator. Unfortunately you have a conflict of interest.--Hu12 (talk) 03:11, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. I'm not comfortable removing this from the blacklist. Its been demonstrated that this is too much risk to wikipedia and its users. Sorry--Hu12 (talk) 03:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Carnegie Council www.cceia.org

See meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist#Carnegie_Council_www.cceia.org_--_Mistaken_black_list_item for original request. I just found this link in Raphael Lemkin, and the referenced article (www.cceia.org/resources/publications/dialogue/2_12/section_1/5139.html) seems quite reliable.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk 17:18, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This item was blacklisted after long-term COI spamming. See report and folowing posts on this item in Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#Long_term_COI_spamming_by_Carnegie_Council. It is suggested there that it should be removed. I will go forward and remove it.  Done --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:24, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Squidoo.com

Hi all,

The website squidoo.com seems to be blacklisted, which I think is a shame - there's plenty of good material there. I was hoping to add this link: www.squidoo.com/ledzep_mothership/ to the Mothership (album) article, as I think it's a decent enough resource. I'm aware that some of the subdomains are blocked on the wikimedia-wide blacklist, so it seems a pity to block the site totally. Especially when there's an article about the site, that can't link to it!

Annihilatenow (talk) 09:54, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hum - the request is here. Given the major spamming I'm not that surprised it was blacklisted frankly --Herby talk thyme 09:59, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Far too much abuse and evidence of abuse on this project to even consider de-listing it. Did a google search, there are plenty of resources on this album more suitable for inclusion than that lense page created by a press and promotions agency --Hu12 (talk) 12:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I really think there's a lot of useful content on the site - plenty of lenses with good information. As a solution, could individual subdomains be blacklisted (as on the MediaWiki blacklist)? That would block the spammy lens creators, and allow useful content through. Here are three examples (none created by me) of lenses that I think could be useful links:
  • www.squidoo.com/parrot-training/
  • www.squidoo.com/japanesetattoos/
  • www.squidoo.com/cubanmissilecrisis/
Annihilatenow (talk) 12:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Far too much abuse and evidence of spamming on this project to more than justification for the blacklisting. I strongly suspect that mass spaming will resume if we do, given past behaviour.--Hu12 (talk) 12:46, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse no Declined, the statement on the squidoo main-page says "Everyone’s an expert on something!

Share your knowledge and passion with the world. Click here to start.", self published information, and therefore people are very happy to add links to their site to Wikipedia (see the spam and the conflict of interest guidelines). Site therefore also fails the reliable sources guideline (self-published information). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with what you're saying about users spamming links, but it feels like cracking a nut with a sledgehammer - does the entire domain need to be blocked? I've provided links to several subdomains that I feel are useful, and I'll happily agree that some others are spammers. Wouldn't the best solution therefore be to just blacklist the worst repeat spam subdomains as they arise, as I suggested above, and remove other inappropriate links from articles individually? There are some valid links to be had from Squidoo, and I'm sure the majority of people trying to add them to articles are doing it in good faith... Annihilatenow (talk) 13:09, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Still, it is self published. Is the information not available on reliable sites as well (and if not, is it then suitable for inclusion into the wikipedia. I still believe it is a shame that there is a lot of information on wikipedia which has not a reliable sourse to back it up. It gets spammed quite a lot, and it is not a reliable site anyway. For the rest the whitelist may be a solution. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:16, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to 'is the info available elsewhere', then yes, it almost certainly is, but the question is "is the information available elsewhere all in one place?" - and I suspect the answer to that might be "no" in a lot of cases. I agree that unreliable information is worse than reliable information, but is it worse than no information at all?
In my mind, the whitelist isn't really that great a solution unless the editor in question is particularly dedicated to getting a particular lens onto a page. I imagine most will just see the spamblock, erroneously assume that it's Wikipedia trying to block Squidoo because there is a certain amount of similar purpose, between the two, and give up on the edit. I'm uneasy about the full site-block because it feels a bit "guilty until proven innocent". On the other hand, I appreciate that it makes your job easier as a spam-fighter. Hmm. A tough one. Annihilatenow (talk) 13:25, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Dirk. The site as a whole should be blacklisted because of the behaviour - if any established editor was to request a specific page to be whitelisted I would certainly not reject it out of hand. --Herby talk thyme 13:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


→See also - Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#waytoblue.com
Annihilatenow , It appears you have a Conflict of interest with www.squidoo.com/ledzep_mothership/. as mentioned above its self published by (and I'll quote)"Way to Blue is the UK's leading digital press and promotions agency". When you requested over on meta asking this site be removed, you used IP 81.149.176.198[4], problem is that IP has been adding "Way to Blue" (ukpress.waytoblue.com) links to wikipedia. in fact you have several WP:SPA accounts you have been using to break Wikipedia policy;
Annihilatenow (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Mkyxblu (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
Matt.gwyn (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log)
81.149.176.198 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log)
Please stop, I have removed the waytoblue.com links, and suggest you read WP:SPAM, WP:EL and WP:COI. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:32, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please assume good faith first before making accusations... I created that lens, sure, but if my sole motivation was to get a link to the lens on the mothership page, then I'd be asking you to add it to the whitelist. I'm not - I'm trying to work out the best way to get useful info on Wikipedia. The other users you mentioned are probably colleagues from my office - Annihilatenow is the only ID that I personally use, and if you look back, you'll find that I've edited from loads of IPs in the past, and my edit history is perfectly valid (I think...). The waytoblue.com links are (as far as I'm aware) mostly links to film trailers. Annihilatenow (talk) 13:57, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is strong evidence to the contrary, [5]. I'm sure I can't be the only one to find irony in the attempt to de-blacklist one of the most prolificly spammed sites on wikipedia, in order to be able to "add" your companies self published link, from its domain.--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I won't dispute the conflict of interest right now, but I do dispute that the edit I was trying to make was useless spam - which is the crucial point. I think it had useful info that people might have wanted to see relating to thr Led Zep album. I also dispute that the waytoblue.com links you removed were useless to the articles you removed them from - I think film trailers are useful to a film article.
I also hope you'll take into account that I've attempted to go through the correct channels to de-list Squidoo. I genuinely feel it's a useful resource - and I don't work for them - I'm just a user. I'm not interested in circumventing wikipedia's rules - like you, I want it to be the best resource possible. Annihilatenow (talk) 15:19, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I'm looking at this now and three of us appear to have declined your request giving various reasons for doing so all of which look valid to me. If you wish to discuss waytoblue.com links then this is not the place. I see absolutely no reason to remove the whole domian and so I am now closing as no Declined thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems

Blacklisting email addresses

Does anyone know why this addition didn't work? E-mail address don't work? I added to the wrong place? I flubbed the regex somehow? None of the above? —Wknight94 (talk) 15:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

mw:Extension:SpamBlacklist#Performance states it'll only work with links starting with http:. —Cryptic 17:12, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So it does. Unfortunate. Do you know if the meta blacklist has the same restriction? There are e-mail addresses in the list there so maybe they're using a different mechanism? —Wknight94 (talk) 18:22, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
There are only two listed and I don't think that would work either way (unless possibly it was a "Clickable" mailto: type link --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh so you don't think those are working anyway. Oh well, I guess we'll just have to keep reverting (or try out one of the anti-spam bots - although I haven't great luck with those in the past). Thanks. —Wknight94 (talk) 18:39, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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]

mapsofworld dot com

Why is this blacklisted? It stops me from editing User:Lupin/alltalk, which is irritating. It appears to be a reasonably harmless reference website. Lupin|talk|popups 08:07, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussion was here thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:10, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=173467057"