Page protected

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Ambox warning yellow.svg This is a discussion archive created in December 2007, though the comments contained may not have been posted on this date. Please do not post any new comments on this page. See current discussion, or the archives index.


Approved Requests

A particular MySpace blog

I understand why most blogs are blacklisted, but certain bands use it to provide information. Gorgoroth have stated something, and it was rightfully sourced here, but with the link up, it is now impossible to edit the page (I'm not sure how they got it up to begin with) without removing a correct source. The link is ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

As far as editing is concerned you can always make it "unclickable" for now. Are there no other option for citing? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
Aparrently not. Thanks anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done - valid request, established editor - cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Link works - thanks! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Needed as a source for African American culture and Black Nativity at wikipedia. futurebird 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I'd like some more info on this. What pages are involved, what is needed to be cited, what makes this a reliable source? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

The citation needed is for a noncontriversial statement, it's about the popularity of Black Nativity in African American communities. ie. just saying "there are a lot of productions of this play every Christmas. I could also source it by linking to every single production that has happened, but that seems too much like original research and annoying, and in any case, we know this is true, as it is common knowledge, but it's better to give just a little more information to back in up, especially for people not in the US who may have never heard of Black Nativity. I have a new York time article as one source, but it only talks about the production in New York City, I've looked, but have not found, anything to back up this simple idea but this little website. So based on these things I feel the source is "good enough" for the material being cited. I really just need ( ) this page.

Here is some of the info that the article backs up. "You’ll find a production of this musical performed in churches, theaters, on college campuses, and more in almost every major U.S. city and other regions." Like I said, common knowledge. By the way can you tell me why it was blacklisted in the first place? futurebird (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I've Yes check.svg Done it (the page you wanted (but if you feel the article needs more come back). The blacklisting is a Meta level one for itself with the request here, cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

DecembeRadio MySpace blog

I'd like to be able to reference DecembeRadio's MySpace blog, as it is a primary news source posted directly by the band. It seems that should qualify for the whitelist. The URL is: —Zeagler 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us more idea of why this link is necessary? Are there alternatives, is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Everything in the "Recent" section of the page was gleaned from their blog. At this point in the band's career, it's one of the only sources for details of their goings-on, and I believe it meets the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. —Zeagler (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

No, thank you. :) —Zeagler (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

South Coast Trunk Road

I've created the article South Coast Trunk Road and feel it would be useful to add a link to There seems to be nothing objectionable in this particular web page. --rossb 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The issue is whether this link adds to teh encyclopedic content of Wikipedia rather than whether there is nothing objectionable on the site. Is it necessary for citation and does it meet reliability standards? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me that it adds information not readily found elsewhere, and is at least as useful as many other external websites that one sees on Wikipedia. Moreover, surely the criteria for actually blacklisting something should relate to whether the site is objectionable; whether that site is actually then linked to from a particular Wikipedia page is a matter for editorial judgment in each case, but there seems no justification for prohibiting a link that is not of itself objectionable in some way. --rossb (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

thanks for the response & Yes check.svg Done --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to add as a reference but it's blocked. Anthonyd3ca 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

  • To which article? And for what content? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I would like for and to be whitelisted for the article Jonas Brothers. My request to remove this domain from the Meta-Wiki blacklist was denied (see - moved to archive), and they recommended whitelisting the URLs here. has information I have referenced that I cannot find published elsewhere. It is currently used as a reference eight times in Jonas Brothers, as current reference number 23 ("Jonas Brothers Biography at"). --Scott Alter 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
Hmmm. Information not available elsewhere sounds like it might not be that reliable, to me. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Looking again at Jonas Brothers and, I see that all of the information at has been published elsewhere, so reliability should not be an issue. The reason I prefer's article is that it presents a large amount of information that is concise and relevant to the Wikipedia article. Even though some portions of contain inappropriate material for referencing, there are also articles with factual information. --Scott Alter 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
Jonas Brothers still uses as a reference many times (now reference number 24, but with a broken link to the site) and I'd still like it to be whitelisted. There are actually two pages for the biography: and the continuation at --Scott Alter 14:29, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done hopefully should be ok now but if not come back, cheers --Herby talk thyme 14:33, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

From the band A Thorn for Every Heart's official MySpace page showing 1) very recent band member lineup changes, 2)the fact that they no longer are with a record label and 3)that their new album is on indefinite hold. The band's official non-myspace web site hasn't been updated since 2006 so this is the only thing I could find to source current members in the article itself. Thank you. -- ALLSTARecho 01:20, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

A hyperlink isnt needed for citing that blog post. --Hu12 01:42, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Pardon? If you can't link to it, then you can't use it as a source - that seems a logical understanding. But if you can kindly show me how to use a source without linking to it, and policy that says it's ok, then I'm down with that and will use it instead. Just tell me how or send me somewhere that tells me how because I've never heard of using sources that can't be verified, ie: linked. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 03:15, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Newsgroups and blogs are poor sources to verify anyways. Try this if you wish to reference. <ref name="Big ATFEH update"> ''Casey Hill and Matt Thorsen join A Thorn For Every Heart''. blog; '''Big ATFEH update''', posted by ATFEH [[2007]]-[[November 22|22-11]]</ref>.[1].


  1. ^ Casey Hill and Matt Thorsen join A Thorn For Every Heart. blog; Big ATFEH update, posted by ATFEH 2007-22-11

--Hu12 03:57, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed about blogs/newsgroups being poor sources, and if this weren't their official MySpace page, I certainly wouldn't have given it a second thought. But since their own official web site isn't updated in a long time, it was my only alternative. Thanks. -- ALLSTARecho 04:44, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
I understand, the above should suit your needs for now. thanks--Hu12 04:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I take a rather different view here. This is an established editor with a valid article who has made a case for the link. Like it or not as time goes by "myspace" and the like will be "official" sites for a number of things and while there should be justification for whitelisting once we have that it should be done. This is Yes check.svg Done and feel free to join in on the policy here thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:43, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

This page supports a reference in Movement to impeach George W. Bush#Online polls and surveys. It is legitimate, relevant, and has the endorsement of a number of prominent people, including Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn. I requested this whitelisting a while back, but that was never responded to and seems to have gotten lost in the shuffle. - JCLately (talk) 02:37, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

This seems to be basically valid to me. If there are no objections I will whitelist in the next day or so. Thanks (& apologies it got "lost" before) --Herby talk thyme 13:13, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done --Herby talk thyme 08:20, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for whitelisting Used on sundial Equation of time Diptych Gnomon I examined the site in May as did User:Walter Siegmund see talk page. Carl himself is an IP Wikipedist. I have posted the following on several user talk pages with no response.

What on earth is the objection to Carl Sabanskis site- apart from pitiful use of HTML! It is by far the most authorative site available on the subject and is an essential link. If the problem lies with someones bot please get that sorted- but remove this destructive blacklisting it does no credit the reputation of Wikipedia.

Further a mirror site has been removed. Can we please have this site whitelisted, and the 'bots' returned to their kennels. ClemRutter 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I had considerable difficulty in understanding exactly where this request for white listing should be made. Attempts to place it at the bottom of the section, as requested, resulted on no posting (perhaps I was unlucky as my internet cafe had a very poor connection). Re-reading the instruction, *here*, was also logically possible and it looks wrong. I am sure that some one will move it to the correct spot.ClemRutter 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
this continues under slightly different address for the same site, I know this act itself can lead to a 'spam' reputation but it is a valueable website. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
IMHO this site had better remain blacklisted. The site is not that useful, and it is quite clear from the talk page and the massive cross-posting (with mirror pages) that the owner of the site merely wants to attract visitors. /SvNH 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
Events have moved on- and Carls reaction to the breach of WP:CIVIL is not helpful. However, my solution is different- and for exactly the same reasons- Whitelist the url: for the en: site where it has not caused any trouble for 3 years. This can be considered a limited trial. But it is not true that it is not that useful- for anyone constructing dials and interested in the Mathematics rather than the artistry it is the first port of call. I have deleted many links on this page in the past that were not notable (this page attracts them!). Visit again talk page and read my analysis of the posting history. Pay particular attention to the Users who have been working long term on this page. Finally we need to separate the value of the content of the site from the frustrations of the author whose antics have annoyed many other wikis. WP:AGF with gritted teeth. Thank you all for your attention ClemRutter 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
An excellent idea maybe even double ring fence it - put it in nonwiki brackets. Then the researcher has to jump through another ring. Why the page is deemed as not important I do not know but hey I only build them on the odd occasion. As I have said many times the actions of the web author here in wikipedia does not best serve the cause of knowledge, but that should not be a reason for stopping it. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
You may want to take a look at what is going on in Diptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imho Wikipedia should provide content, not links. Omitting one single external link cannot be a major loss, circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse. But this is, perhaps, a Scandinavian point of view. /SvNH 09:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the pointer, yes I agree the actions do undermine the usefulness of the site. The site gave the mathematical content of the article. agreed circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse would be worse, but the link did provide information and knowledge. I think now though the website is too intrinsically linked to spam. Ho Hum sad but I suppose we could look at adding the maths into the article. At the moment I cannot see where to go with this. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is extremely frustrating that there is still no resolution to this. It is even easier to see Carl's point of view where the random intervention of someone who had no significant role in the developement of the page- blacklists a significant resource- and all the 'official' routes to remedy are broken. ClemRutter 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

I've followed this from a distance over many months. From the perspective of a non-admin volunteer who clears a lot of spam in connection with WikiProject Spam, here are my comments:
  • The domain owner has worked very, very hard to get his site blacklisted on meta.
  • The domain owner has been informed many times not to link to his own site. He's been referred numerous times to WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. This has seemed only to harden his determination and persistence.
  • The site seems to be run more as a passion than as a commercial operation. That doesn't change the fact that these links have been spammed, but it is worth noting.
  • The domain owner can be considered uncontrollable and not amenable to any Wikipedia consensus
  • Multiple established editors on en.wikipedia have fought for these links, not because they like the owner's behaviour but because they value the site's content.
  • Nobody on any other Wikipedia appears to want these links at all and they are mad to have had them spammed
My suggestion is to whitelist this domain on en.wikipedia on a trial basis and watch it like a hawk. We'd be whitelisting it not becuase we approve of the site owner's behaviour but because as an encyclopedia, this site has content that experienced editors here wanted to link to.--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
I looked at the site Simple inclusion of that link in any of our current articles would be hard to defend in terms of our policies as written, since it is a personal web site, and the author of the site can't be shown to be a recognized expert from reliable sources. I notice that there is some quirky (and possibly correct) information in there that may not be easily accessible elsewhere, for instance that site is the #1 Google hit for 'cycloid polar sundial.' If sundial enthusiasts feel that this information is valuable, they should consider writing appropriate articles in Wikipedia. Since appears to be weak on sourcing, I'm not sure if this would be easy to do. People would have to dig up their own sources for stuff like 'cycloid polar sundial' which surely isn't easy. Still, this is the work of writing an encyclopedia. EdJohnston 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for your comments. As this still remains on the backlog- please excuse a reply. The specific difficulty on this article is finding reliable and understandable information that is consistent in style. It is here that the said site is valuable- in that it is the most complete didactic site around. Whenever any maths is written- it is this site that I will check it against for accuracy- the very traits that brought the author to the attention of the 'checkbots' are vert traits needed in composing a bit of good maths. (Like the dogged attempt to add a link to every new language ... becomes the dogged attempt to cover all types of dial). So your points
  • our policies as written I have personally culled over half of the links of this wikipage- so take it seriously though personally the quality of the site would cause me to be generous- if this were the real problem then citations would now be viable - but the blacklist hits citations too.
  • recognised expert from reliable sources- so he is unpublished but as a designer (from memory:- Pinawa memorial Dial Manitoba etc)shows he is a respeced practitioner. Every respected sundial society lists his primer --- but Wikipedia no longer can (this goes for French, Dutch German sites etc). As he has articles on line published by at least three national societies isn't this enough evidence of peer review.
  • it seems quirky that we (bruised and battered) editors link in to the said site- but our readers have to link to five or six other lists, that indirectly point them to this site.
  • the disputed site is week on sourcing (and html!) but so is the Book of Mormon or the Christian Bible- (both personal websites in their day!) but Wiki standards don't extend to external sites.
No, it was for none of these reasons that the site was blacklisted, it was to do with potential interwiki spam. So let's admit the analysis was wrong. Look at the maths, look at the CADialing. The site is needed on English wiki- so whitelist please and soon. ClemRutter 22:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I find myself in a rather strange position here. I was one of the Meta admins who dealt with the blacklisting of some of the number of new domains used in connection with this site in August. The disruption across wikis was quite significant. However equally I see the argument offered by A. B. as persuasive. I've thought about this for a while & in the end I have Yes check.svg Done this whitelisting. However I do feel that we should be extremely vigilant in case there is any abuse of this whitelisting by excessive linkage. If that happened I would not hesitate to remove it or advise others to do so. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. You are perfectly right to be vigilant. The article has stagnated since September- let's see if this will revive it. ClemRutter (talk) 18:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Sundial we have asked many times for clarification as to how to keep this link. This policy is now stopping the development of the article. After a long period of time spent up loading images to be told that it cannot be saved is very frustrating. Please see talk pages for a history. The site to which this link goes does have its problems but is informative, instructional and knowledgeable. What more does one want? --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I would object to that, see above. /SvNH 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

This is the only resource I could find that contains reliable information on The General (TV series), and the link is required for referencing purposes. Waggers (talk) 09:34, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Should work! If not get back to me - cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:24, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Declined Requests

Hello, this is my personal domain that hosts my blog, placed at, and I would like to place a link to it in my user page. I currently cannot do so, because the domain * is blacklisted. Thanks a lot.--urindar 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Given the fact that they have four links to personal sites already on their user page and that they have not edited for a couple of months I'm closing this as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC) is the url to my personal website, I attempted to add a link to my user page, and was told that it was blacklisted. this link is a collection of musings on various subjects, and in no way, shape, or form makes me any money. Jehan60188 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Not what I would term an "established user" and not edited since this so closed as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Catholic Church

I feel that there is no need to blacklist any links within wikipedia simply because it relates to the Catholic Church. i personally am not catholic, but i do know catholic beliefs, and try to link to them as well as other religions, but i cant because someone put catholicism on the blacklist. the changes i try to add are all perfectly relevant, and yet i still am unable to make any changes. i tried to correct a nonexistant link on the page about euthanasia, Roman Catholic medical ethics, to Roman Catholicism, but for whatever reason, i found that this was blacklisted. It would be a relatively useful correction for any person looking for beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding euthanasia.

And i apologize if i put this under the wrong heading, im still relatively new and not entirely sure how to organize the discussion page, sorry for any inconvenience...

Hi sniper201092 to have something whitelisted you need to provide the link you want whitelisted (just leave off the http:// bit and it'll be postable). Then we'll be able to look up why it was blacklisted in the first place and meak a decision about whter to whitelist it. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)
Nothing heard for a couple of weeks so closed as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This webpage contains a download link for spyware, however, I have put a disclaimer cautioning the user.

This should be able to be used on Consumer alert system when I create it; right now, the article is in my 2nd sandbox.

This will provide a link for the users to see the website, which is why this may be useful to Wikipedia. Thank you. Jonathan talk 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

Am I getting this right - you want to have a site that has spyware on it whitelisted? For me that would be pretty close to "no" but am I misunderstanding something? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
Yes...but I have put an uninstallation link and have also cautioned the user in bold text next to the link, so they do know about it. Thanks! Jonathan 08:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Ok - personally I am not going to whitelist anything that may cause someone using Wikipedia in good faith to access a site that might be undesirable. Interestingly I find that my HOSTS file blocks the site because of "[PcTools.CasinoClient]". --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
I guess I'll just put the actual address...if they want it that bad, they can type it themselves. Jonathan 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)

So closed and X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC) link on my user page

Please whitelist either or specifically I'd like to link to it on my userpage. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I think snipurl is a link shortener? If so such sites are blacklisted at Meta as a matter of policy to prevent them being used maliciously or to circumvent current blocks. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
Equally, call me picky but why not place the actual link there? Closing in a couple of days if no further response - cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing heard, closed - X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Forcefeed announcements on blog

I am making an article on a Dutch metal band called Forcefeed. Now they made several announcements about their band, such as one of the members leaving and postponing one of their tours, and I would like to add the references to the article. The links are: Johan leaving: and Tour postponed: and the last one: the recording of their new album:

Please whitelist them. As you can see if you check out the links, they're normal announcements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nake-Blade (talkcontribs) 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Given this edit appears to be your only contribution I am not sure how valid it is. Are you planning to work on the article soon? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing heard, closed - X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why suite101 is blacklisted, unless there were problems in the past with a specific spammer. If it's blocked for some kind of policy reason, OK, but if it's just to deal with obnoxious types then please allow me to link this article. Currently I've commented out the reference at Media scrum in order to get through - you can check there for the context. <eleland/talkedits> 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

There was a lot of spam from the site because they encouraged writers to SEO their articles and choose to keep or get rid of writers based on how many hits their articles got. This seemd to encourage a lot of spamming - We also found out that there is no real editorial oversight of the published material and writers are allowed to write on pretty much whatever they like so almost none of the articles were reliable sources (I think there was a link white listed in the last few weeks that actually turned out to be by a bona fide expert). From A.B.'s response further up this page -

:For some background, here's a partial list of spam discussions on Wikipedia:

I don't know if Rhonda Parkinson is a notable commentator for what you're trying to use her for - if so then this link should be white listed so you can use it. If not you might want to look for a more reliable reference. -- SiobhanHansa 01:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
An answer to this will allow me to close the request? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing heard, closed - X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

This is clearly a relevant and legitimate media site. They cover news, culture, music, etc. They were on the cover of the New York Times Business section as a stealth project by Viacom. They have a full feature article in Wired. The fact that someone would black list a site that is regularly featured for its journalism on CNN is absolutely mad. These guys are creating and reporting news. why do people hate on them. They're no different then CNN, NYTimes, etc. They're a news media outlet. I suggest we remove them from Blacklist immediately.

I want to use this site for tons of there stories. Toxic Alberta for tar sands, toxic west virginia for mountain top removal, colombian devils breath for scopalamine, VBS.TV for VICE magazine wiki. VBS.TV for VBS.TV wiki. These guys are more relevent then the majority of the guys people reference here. It amazes me how totally out of touch some of our wiki community is. I went to edit and correct the VICe magazine wiki, and bam, someone has reported VBS as spam. you must fix this.
—Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:55, 30 November 2007

  • X mark.svg Not done - we have had some major problems with people spamming that website. See this for more details. Oh, and making demands isn't a good way to get what you want. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 23:52, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
For what it's worth, we normally do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to requests from site-owners or anonymous editors. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address:
Cheers, --A. B. (talk) 00:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Shaun of the Dead Director Edgar Wright blog entry on his Myspace page

I'm trying to revert some vandalism and format spamming on the Shaun of the Dead entry, however a reference to director Edgar Wright's myspace blog is stopping me updating.

The reference is and it appears to be important to the Shaun of the Dead article, in that it verifies the Directors motivations when they were reported to have refused to make an American TV series version of their movie. DrJon 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm a fan:) but can you give us more idea of why this link is necessary? Are there alternatives, is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I need to add as a reference for the article Gilly Flaherty but due to the spam protection blacklist, I can't. It's for the content with the section header "Millwall Lionesses", which provides information on the early part of the career of the Football (Soccer) player. Thanks. --Johngooner 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is this the only available source for referencing? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

For page Anywhere But Here (Buffy comic) - the blog in question is the Dark Horse Comics blog, and contains the announcement of the winner, and the winning information, along with info from Joss Whedon on what he intends to do with the character. They haven't posted it anywhere else, so this is the prime source for this information. Thanks. --Thespian 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us some idea of why this link is necessary and is it still the only source? Are there alternatives, is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

I was attempting to cite sources for album information on The Live EP, an album by The Black Keys. As this was a digital release via MySpace the only "liner notes" for this album giving information on its production were posted to the band's official blog. This is a primary source posted directly by the band, so it seems like it classifies for the whitelist. The full URL is: /index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3451033&blogID=267108076 sHARD 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you give us some idea of why this link is necessary (& is it still or are there now other sources)? Is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC) on graffiti page

Hi, I recently saw that the external link was removed from the "graffiti" articles of most languages. This site was in the external links of some of the "graffiti" pages for a few years in some languages, so I have added this external links to the graffiti articles of other languages. is one of the largest and most important graffiti ressource on the web, with pictures from many countries, news on graffiti culture and events and a large community of graffiti writers contributing to the site.

It is clearly one of the few sites that are true comprehensive ressources on graffiti on the web and this is why I ask this site to be whitelisted in the graffiti articles. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

It is actually blacklisted at Meta in response to this request. Give the spamming history rather more information about why you feel that the site should be whitelisted is necessary, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

As I wrote in the first message, the site was listed in the external link section of the graffiti articles in a few languages already for some time (for years in some languages). I simply took the link and posted the ressource in the graffiti articles of other langagues. This is not called spamming. I have simply posted a ressource that was used already in the graffiti articles to the same articles in other languages. If I was spamming, I would have posted the link in unrelated articles, or I would have posted a new link in all graffiti articles that wasn't "approved" already... but this site was, because it was listed as a ressource since a long time-- (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

There is no suggestion that you were responsible for the quite large number of links that have been placed to that site. However it is the reason that it is blacklisted. It is not the page the links are on that is the issue but the quantity of them across wikis that makes us call them "spam". If some links remained after blacklisting then it is because we did not get around to cleaning them up. I would need to see a request from an established user to consider this request. --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hum... I think you don't totally understand my point. The link was there years before I have added the links to the articles of other languages. I simply added a link that was already there to the other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined. There isn't any encyclopedic value for including it at this point. Would need a request from an established editor to even consider de-listing. Thanks for your time--Hu12 00:43, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

How should I contact an established editor? By the way, the site was featured on Juxtapoz website last week (Juxtapoz is one of the authority magazine in the art world and is also listed on Wikipedia's graffiti page): -- 04:26, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Look in the history and find the names of users (not IP addresses) that have edited the article in question multiple times. Then find those users' talk pages. --Damian Yerrick (talk | stalk) 13:40, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

This is my personal website. I am requesting that it be whitelisted, because I would like to add a link to it from an userbox on my user page. However, the spam filter is presently preventing me from doing so. I believe the page has been blacklisted because of its "" suffix. Thank you for your time. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 03:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know the details, but I suspect that may be blacklisted as a redirect site. Redirect sites are normally blacklisted on site since they've been used by spammers to bypass our spam filters. The bad news is that catches a lot of benign sites, too. The good news is that the benign sites can still be linked to using their actual URLs. If I'm not mistaken, I think that same page can still be reached via:
If there's still a problem, let us know. --A. B. (talk) 10:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
That is correct. The website can still be reached with that URL. However, the underlying URL may change; that is, I may end up hosting the site elsewhere. By contrast, the forwarding link will always provide access to the website. That is why I would prefer, if possible, to use the forwarding link. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 09:01, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
It would not seem a great effort for you to change the link to your website when you change the hosting arrangements? I'm afraid I do not see a compelling reason to whitelist this, thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:47, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
My own link does not concern me, so much as the possibility of others linking to a page which may become obsolete. Since I do not know how complicated it is to whitelist websites and I do not know if it is possible to whitelist websites for a particular Wikipedia page, I will understand if you choose to decline the request. In any event, thank you for your time. ← Michael Safyan (talk) 18:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

This is the official website for a Political party in Puerto Rico. I am trying to add this website to the article page of Puerto Rican Independence Party. I don't know why it is blacklisted, but it should be whitelisted because it is an important site beloging to a political party in Puerto Rico. There is no span in that site, that I know of, and it mostly speaks of the party's official business, current political campaign or important matters in PR. --Charleenmerced Talk 06:20, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Extensively linked across wikis earlier in the year. Blacklisted at meta with discussion here. I would not be inclined to whitelist, sorry --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing else heard, closed as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

This is actually the address of my redirector, but it is the URL I submitted. This will resolve into which is the proper address. I assume it was blacklisted because I uploaded two images referencing said URL in short order. The link was intended to give users who were interested in similar imagery a shortcut to my gallery currently used at and Miso-chan (talk) 17:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)miso-chan

Almost all redirectors are blocked per WP:EL#Redirection sites; it had nothing to do with your addition of the images. Is there some reason you can't link directly to your site? Kuru talk 18:12, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
Confirming Kuru - redirectors are blacklisted at Meta for the potential damage they may cause and to prevent circumvention of listings. So X mark.svg Not done I'm afraid --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

No worries, my redirector bit the dust anyway... Miso-chan

Please whitelist this site. It does have the required information for the Ionic Bonding. I received this email today in response to an inquiry:


Thanks for trying to add the link. Yes, unfortunately it seems that they're really picky about outbound links. I've tried to add just a few in the past and I think they red flagged the domain because they saw more than just a couple coming from the same user.

Being a 3rd party to the site yourself hopefully your can voice your opinion and it will carry some weight with them.

Thanks again for your efforts!

Bradford Folkens

> Your information is on the, "Ionic Bonding" page at Wikipedia. I attempted to add your citation and the Wikipedia help editor returned that the URL, has been blacklisted. Sorry to see this, it must be an oversight of some kind. Thanks, Mike --Michael William Andersen (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A little look at this shows that the site was blacklisted on Meta a year ago because of excessive external links (here). A look at the site suggest to me that it is not necessarily a reliable source - I would imagine there are other reliable sources out there?. Others may well comment. --Herby talk thyme 08:40, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing more heard. If there is a proven need for a link that meets standards then please let us have the link, failing which I will close this in a day or so, thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:33, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
I did a little checking on this domain and it turns out that we missed a number of related domains when the blacklisting was done. This is just a first cut -- I think there's a lot more, but I don't have time to investigate:
Inter-related site owner names:
  • Advameg, Nexum, Mazur, Net Industries LLC
  • Advameg features in a number of discussions here on Wikipedia
--A. B. (talk) 20:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Certainly closed as X mark.svg Not done as far as whitelisting is concerned. Thanks for the research A. B. --Herby talk thyme 13:12, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

At the bottom of the Frank Herbert entry is a list of forums and fan sites. I tried to add this one to the list, which is the second most popular and active Dune discussion board on the internet, and it is being blacklisted due to "invisionfree" being in the address. This is being added in a list of forums and message boards and deserves to be included in that list. Its actually more active than most of the existing entries. I would like to request that this particular forum (NOT all invisionfree sites) be added to the whitelist. thanks Tleilax Master B (talk) 15:27, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Links to discussion forums/groups are Links normally to be avoided per External links policy--Hu12 (talk) 16:10, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per Hu12, --Herby talk thyme 16:29, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

triggered the protection, but not remotely close to that. I'm trying to add a link to the spaced wiki page and it is denied because of the fact that in spaced... you have space, like in myspace. Maybe the protection is a lil bit harder than it should

please remove this link from blacklist —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 09:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Need some more info on this. What page are you getting the error on? The site you mention should not be affected by the blacklist here or on Meta - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:00, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
Nothing more heard so closed as X mark.svg Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:30, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add this link in an "External links" section on the page about Squidoo. I think it's relevant to put it at least there. --Arnauld (talk) 08:44, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined for the same reasons here as a result of this. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:01, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

I tried to add this site to this: page. It was blocked due to invisionfree in name, This forum is dedicated to preserving this game and is the only known surving forum that still promotes this game and provides support to North America with many resources including mapping and server Admin. This clan has been involved in this game since it's beta version, There is zero spam on these forums. my email is thank you :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Symbol declined.svg Declined Requires both registration and is a chat forum, these are Links normally to be avoided. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 18:06, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

An introductory phrase on Mithraic Mysteries has required a source for a short time now, and since no one else took the initiative, I made a quick search and found a proper source almost instantly. Unfortunately, it appears to be blacklisted for no perceivable reason. It's essentially an ancient Iranian study group, and although I may be missing something here, I don't really see any reason why this site is on the blacklist. It's a rather informative site- can this be whitelisted, or can one elucidate on why this site happens to be blocked?--C.Logan (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

I've done some reading on the blacklist, and I've seen the reasons for blacklisting (though the severity of it seems exaggerated to me- I know little about copyright issues). In any case, I've found the original source of the text at Encyclopedia Iranica, so the problem has been solved.--C.Logan (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

It was a longstanding external link on Bar chart article. From the page:

"This package is free software. It is distributed under GPL - legalese removed, it means that you can use this for any purpose, but cannot charge for this software. Any enhancements you make to this piece of code, should be made available free to the general public! You should also carry a link to this page for users to download the latest version."

Free graphing software is needed by people working at the Wikipedia:Graphics Lab, Wikipedia:WikiProject Illustration, etc.. Since it is free software there is no commercial interest involved. It is not easy to find this type of free graphing software. --Timeshifter 19:32, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

--A. B. (talk) 23:47, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Could you explain to me what that info there means? From looking at I gather that is a freeware site. From that page you linked to I think it shows that some enthusiastic anonymous IPs are adding links to freeware to wikipedia pages? Aren't there a lot of links in wikipedia to the Open Directory, , too? I don't pretend to understand the finer points of spam interdiction on wikipedia, but what is the problem with relevant freeware links? The one removed as spam on the Bar chart page I watchlist seemed like it met all the requirements for an external link, WP:EL. It seems like you are throwing out good relevant links with the non-relevant external links by using such a shotgun tool as a block of a whole site. --Timeshifter 11:40, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Please note that I have over 10,000 edits on wikipedia. Maybe we need to somehow block the addition of external links by anonymous editors? On the one hand we frequently encourage newbies to contribute to Wikipedia, and then on the other hand we oftentimes slap them down hard when they do. Whatever happened to WP:BITE? Why do we encourage the addition of relevant sourced info to the rest of an article, but discourage it in the external links section? Especially of freeware which has no commercial interest. I bet the editors of the pages noticed when the links were added, and if they had an objection, they would have deleted irrelevant low-quality external links. At least I do on many pages I watchlist. --Timeshifter 12:00, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
None of the additions were made by established editors, they all were added by anons, with little or no edits outside of adding links and is considered WP:Spam. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" and persistent spammers do have their websites blacklisted. Spamming is about promoting your own site or a site you love, not always about "commercial" vs "freeware" sites. Links to commercial sites are often appropriate. Links to sites for the purpose of using Wikipedia to promote a site are not. Some links can be a service to the reader, but they cannot improve the encyclopedia itself. Yes, the internet is full of good links, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content, especialy when the intent, as in this case, is obvious promotion. With that said, I agree to whitelist for Timeshifter if there is consensus for it. But strongly suggest its additions be monitored.--Hu12 12:27, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for agreeing to whitelist . I could see how multiple linking to it by a particular anonymous editor might be spamming. It would depend on whether they understood wikipedia enough, and particularly WP:EL, to know whether the external link they left on a particular article is of a high enough quality for that particular article. It takes time to learn that. Some anonymous editors may actually be doing a good job of it. I think it is an assumption to say what their motives are. Some may just like freeware in general. I certainly do, because I am poor. I don't make a point though of going around and leaving multiple links to a particular website. Some freeware linkers may be website owners. But if it is freeware, consider their motives. They are donating their time for free for a good cause, not commercial interest.
I bet though that many links to are not left by anonymous editors. So a site block could cause a lot of damage to wikipedia. A freeware site is very likely to be a legitimate link magnet, because freeware is referenced legitimately in many computer-related articles on wikipedia.
My proposal to limit external linking to registered users is serious. I think the MediaWiki software would need to be adjusted to be able to apply semi-protection to only the external links sections of articles. Then we could spot those multiple linkers to the same website, and gently and POLITELY educate them on the fine points of WP:EL.
I fundamentally disagree with calling the addition of high-quality external links "spam." My understanding of the common meaning of the term is that it is unwelcome advertising. Some wikipedia spam fighters seem to have adopted their own specialized meaning of the term "spam". I personally welcome high-quality external links (in limited numbers per article) that meet WP:EL. If someone wants to become a registered user, and do nothing but add high-quality external links to articles, I think it is a valuable service. Especially if they are taught also to remove low-quality external links, too. Then the limited number of external links on each wikipedia article would be improving over time.
I think the current guidelines concerning spam and external links are very vague and contradictory. Also, many of the spam fighters on wikipedia are very rude, uncivil, and abusive. --Timeshifter 18:52, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
I took off the blacklist. I realy like your idea to limit external linking to registered users. I hear what your saying. However spam and spamming are seperate things. WP:EL is a style guideline, WP:SPAM is a content guideline however, adding a multitude of links, regardless of the links compliance with WP:EL guidelines is a behavioral violation. Spamming is an act that is considered disruptive and blockable per Wikipedia:Blocking_policy#Disruption. As seen often, hundreds of WP:EL compliant links may be added by an overzelous contributor with the rational the links are relevant. This is the act of spamming.--Hu12 19:24, 1 December 2007 (UTC)
Timeshifter, I was expressing no opinion on the issue of this domain -- just adding a link to the prior discussion. I did not investigate the history of this one. We normally whitelist links when requested by editors such as yourself.
I agree with Hu12 about intent. Persistently campaign-adding links to a "benign" site in spite of requests to do otherwise overwhelms our community's editing mechanisms. Do we want every article remotely related to World War II linked to "nice" veteran's sites in Saskatchewan and Kalamazoo? The fact is that we get this sort of thing everyday (just not usually to the point of level 4 warnings and blacklisting). And even owners of "nice" sites soccasionally get muley and stubborn about adding links in spite of numerous requests to stop and we sometimes have to blacklist them just to maintain some sort of encyclopedic quality and community control.
As for abusive spamfighters, I can only speak for myself, but I try very hard to be polite as well as discerning about both link quality and relevance. I'm not perfect, but I do try hard to get it right. --A. B. (talk) 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Thanks for the courteous replies Hu12 and A.B.. I had some really bad experiences in the past with some spam fighters. I see your point A.B. about "every article remotely related to World War II linked to 'nice' veteran's sites in Saskatchewan and Kalamazoo". I think my idea of semi-protecting the external links section would solve the problem. Then we could inform the newbies that they need to balance linking to their favorite sites with links to other sites, and that the goal is to link to the best external links for each article. Then the efforts of the newbies would balance out via competition. They would have to defend their chosen external links to the regular editors of an article. I don't agree with this Hu12: "adding a multitude of links, regardless of the links compliance with WP:EL guidelines is a behavioral violation." I think this disagreement is the root of the problem. I think the solution is to encourage a variety of links. Instead of saying stop adding links, say that they need to register and add a variety of links if they want more respect for their efforts. And they need to do some regular editing too in order to understand better what actually qualifies as a high-quality external link.

Another possibility (until the semi-protection mechanism is created, or maybe as a substitute solution) is to create and post a policy that clearly states that anonymous editors can't add external links at all. Then you will not have arguments over the number or quality of the links that they add. I think this is a quick and dirty solution that will stop a lot of the bad feeling generated by some spam fighting. And it will probably get more people registered too. Then you won't have to do detailed analysis of what the anonymous editors are adding either. It would make the job of spam fighting a thousand times easier. Once the policy is approved the word will get out fast, and the other editors will enforce it. You will not have to do much at all about anonymous editors. Then you can focus on mentoring registered users. You would be generating lots of good feeling, too. Newbies oftentimes have a hard time getting any constructive help. There would be lots of spam fighters with more time to help them. Anonymous editors would be told that they have to suggest external links on the talk pages of articles, and only registered users can add them. A policy could be made that new registered users can't add external links either until one month has passed from when they registered. Or 2 months, 3 months, etc.. That is easy to check by looking at their user contributions and clicking the "oldest" link. Once the word gets out about this new policy many, many editors would enforce it. --Timeshifter 21:39, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Apparently no longer on the blacklist so this is now closed as no longer relevant --Herby talk thyme 19:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Request for whitelisting

This is a genuine, well organised and moderated fan site that has been around long enough with a steadily increasing membership to warrant inclusion in the External Links of the main article of the sites subject matter. Namely, the singer/songwriter Keith Urban. We had a link up for several months this year and this week it has been removed three times and finally we have been blocked. It's outrageous to block external links to sites that can only benefit the subject and we would very much like our address to be whitelisted. The article to which we would like to be added to is

Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrostarku (talkcontribs) 01:58, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Clear POV COI, ignore and move on, just another unhappy spammer that we have caught spreading their POV, unreliable cruft. βcommand 02:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Betacommand2 (talkcontribs)
Thanks for bringing this link to our attention, Metrostarku. It's not presently on either our local or our global (meta) blacklists -- we'll start looking into this to see if we should blacklist it? Does the siteowner have any other domains besides this one? --A. B. (talk) 02:31, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We think that should include in it's 'External Links' our well-moderated and kindly message-board. When we go to add our details... ( ) we get this message... ( ). We never had this before and have enjoyed months of having our link on this article. What gives? We are not Spam, we are active at the official message board with myself working there as a tech advisor and our satellite fan site is run expertly and kindly toward the subject matter. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrostarku (talkcontribs) 06:20, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

We are now able to add our link to External Links. Thank you. 06/12/07. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Metrostarku (talkcontribs) 16:17, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Solved - it was an "" issue --Herby talk thyme 09:17, 7 December 2007 (UTC) frustrations

I tried undoing an edit on Portal:Current events/2007 December 3 and the spam filter notice popped up beacuse of a link to The blacklisted URL is used as citation for the article and I was woundering why it's blacklisted. Should it not be used as a source? – Zntrip 03:05, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Spam blacklist is driving me nuts

I am trying to update the current affairs portal to show the correct date. I want to then add a story on a coal mine blast that has killed 40 people in China. The spam whitelist keeps on stopping claiming that there is a hyperlink to Andrha News. I am not trying to add the hyperlink nor is it present as far as I can tell. I don't care if it is blocked or not. I do care that it is stopping me from editing productively. Capitalistroadster (talk) 06:33, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry you're having this frustration. The blacklist is not supposed to create problems like this for regular editors like yourself.
See this ongoing discussion: Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard#Community ban of spammer. There are (or were) hundreds of these links and normally they'd be deleted before blacklisting but perhaps that did not happen in this case. I suggest raising the issue there while folks are still discussing what to do. I'd whitelist it for you myself but both the blacklist and whitelist pages are edit-protected. --A. B. (talk) 06:47, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
Requested specific urls which I'll whitelist as soon as I can, cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:18, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
There are hundreds of links on various projects. To minimize disruption, I recommend temporarily removing that one domain from the blacklist until the deletions are complete. --A. B. (talk) 13:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)
(To Zntrip) Alternatively, you could have messaged me on my talk page about why you were trying to revert me for removing spam links.
(To A. B.) Looking at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard#Community_ban_of_spammer it is a URL that was prolifically spammed. It seems to me that the URL should not be used as a valid reference and alternate references can be provided once these are removed. There are potentially hundreds of new users or anonymous users who could be spam blocked for editing an article containing this URL and they not know why they can't make the edit, so I agree with the suggestion. If a story is notable enough for the Current events Portal, then plenty of alternate references should be available. — Save_Us_229 13:28, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

To Save_Us_229: Whoa, settle down, I wasn’t trying to revert anything. How would I have known to contact you? All I know is that I tried to edit a page, but I couldn’t because a blacklisted URL was on it. I didn’t even know that Wikipedia blacklisted URLs. I didn’t even know this page I’m commenting on existed. I just came here to inquire as to what I should do. I had no idea about who you are or what you were doing, and frankly I’m still a bit confused. Basically, like Capitalistroadster, I don’t care if the URL is blocked, I just want to edit the page, but I don’t want to remove the link because it’s a reference. – Zntrip 23:30, 6 December 2007 (UTC)


Spam filter or editorial filter?

As I said in #Without_warning.21, this is a spam filter, and should not be used to block links that are prohibited merely for editorial reasons, like or links that violate WP:C. There will always be a few instances in which such links are appropriate. Please remove all such domains.

If they're a persistent problem, create a bot to flag such links for review by editors; don't just block them mechanically. This is causing people to lose their work unnecessarily. — Omegatron 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)