This section is for archiving Additions. |
As per this discussion on WP:ANI. This site was being used in approximately 84 articles on Wikipedia-en, though I have removed some of these links. Site appears to be useful to cite material but fails to meet requirements set out in WP:RS (self-published, publisher claims "first draft", etc. etc.). -- Yamla ( talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done -- Yamla ( talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For logging purposes. See [1]
Several different SPAs keep inserting this link into Nancy Boyda. It's just one person's advocacy blog, not officially associated with Ms. Boyda. I'm tired of reverting it.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: SPA is now using boydabloc.com. Need that boydablocked too.-- Father Goose ( talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Monitored, putting it on XLinkBot. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
buddhabihar.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
Recurring and fairly obvious spam from dynamic IPs, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2#spam.buddhabihar.com and WT:WPSPAM#spam.buddhabihar.com. MER-C 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
These IPs added several other dating sites but they appear to be unrelated.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheesy:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable fan blog persistently spammed to support NHL Quartley Editor's unreliable, POV, potentially libelous edits to our Sean Avery article.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
financemanila.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com -- spammer links this to all Philippine company articles. -- Howard the Duck 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
au-answers.com is already blacklisted:
Now another IP has spammed a link to a site that redirects to au-asnwers.com:
Still another site is also redirect:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A.B. has there ever been a site listed on here you haven't Done? I am not arguing these sites here. I am just wandering if you are researching these edits and proposals. There is no way you have researched all this information accurately. You haven't had time. Please make edits to only the sites you can review and investigate. This is designed to improve wikipedia.org. We have high standards here and many eager editors willing to help out and research material. Anyone can say Done without reviewing the material. It doesn't help anyone including yourself to just go through thousands of sites a day you didn't review. Yes you will get edit credits but they will come back to haunt you. You are doing the public a dis-service by not reviewing the information accurately.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
More persistent dynamic IP spam. 212.116.220.73 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked, only to spam again. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There are two persons edit warring with each other to make sure their travel guide website is linked and the other is not on the article Ningbo. One is a single purpose account purely for spamming and reverts with no explanation.
As you can see nothing but making sure that his website is linked. Most probable spamming his own website. Checking the page history it looks like he uses sockpuppets to do this for almost a year.
Hermant patel ( talk) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a spam war. I put together an "order of battle" at WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely action. They didn't do anything, didn't contribute anything to wiki except trying to promote their dodgy travel guide websites. Also thanks for getting the other sites I missed - its so hard to keep track of the spamming. Hermant patel ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The diffs and account involved above reveal the spamming history of the last week or so. But it appears to go back much further than that, at least several months... Elsendero ( talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
See related report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mi-technologies
[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]
User(s) have been warned, but continue to re-insert link whose only purpose is marketing/spam. Note: When warned that they would be blocked the next time the link was added, the anon at User talk:81.152.171.33, demonstrated that the warnings are being read by replying "I think you will have a problem because I edit from my internet cafe'! See ya Mike." --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed & Done, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
User has been warned, but continues to re-insert link. -
Amog |
Talk
14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added postchronicle.com to the blacklist for enWP due to a number of issues:
Post chronicle functions as a kind of tattle blog, much of the content is salacious gossip and a lot of the cites to it were for content about matters of controversial nudity or sexual misdemeanours - precisely the sort of content where the very best sources are necessary. Most were redundant to another cite to a much better source, fortunately.
Here's a classic example: www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21219679.shtml - the content is "compiled from wire reports" (whose?) by a reporter of no known credentials, the header makes it look as if it might be syndicated but the copyright status is unclear, the original source appears to be a blog anyway, and there are so many ads that occasionally my browser crashes when viewing the site. The site states it carries syndicated and original content, but it's not clear which is which or indeed whether it is legitimately syndicated, rather than simply copied. The site plays fast and loose with copyright by its own admission, so this is a legitimate concern.
The site claims to be a news site, but has no obvious news gathering resources and no apparent accreditation as a news agency or source. Stories typically do not cite their sources, even when these are directly traceable to other sites or reputable news agencies.
Over a period of weeks I have removed all links in mainspace, the last hundred or so today. I am logging here for transparency and to ensure the addition is properly logged. Guy ( Help!) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a site that gets spammed to many film articles. The usual form the spam takes is "A Chicago critic wrote..." or a link in the External links section. Here are diffs of spamming with prose. [29] [30] [31] [32]. Here are diffs of external link spamming. [33] [34] [35] You can look at the contributions of 68.72.112.61, 68.72.130.21, 216.177.119.154, 68.72.135.94, AdamFendelman and Happynesss. The page User:AdamFendelman says "I serve as [...] the publisher of HollywoodChicago.com. A WHOIS on GoDaddy.com says the site was created February 2007. Related to this are the AFD for HollywoodChicago.com, and the AFD for Adam Fendelman. This SSP report is also related. The account AdamFendelman has not edited since September 3, 2007. If you look here you can see that links to the site currently appear in 29 articles. Here is a thread from October 2007 by current WikiProject Films Coordinator Erik saying "What will it take to blacklist the site and purge Wikipedia of the promotional Adam Fendelman and HollywoodChicago.com?" This ANI thread from September 2007 is also related. -- Pixelface ( talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Happynesss (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
AdamFendelman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
68.72.125.161 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
199.44.26.69 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.143.104 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.128.91 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.137.246 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.135.46 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
207.181.251.96 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
68.72.119.223 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
Done--
Hu12 (
talk)
03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Per [36], I have blacklisted this site due to spamming by a number of IPs all apparently the same individual. Guy ( Help!) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Request local blacklisting per Talk:Dana DeArmond#Official website. Apparently this is not her official website, but an unapproved impostor site. Insertions have already resulted in the Foundation being contacted, and anon IPs continue to insert link to this impostor site. Kelly hi! 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This URL is being spammed repeatedly by an SPA to a specific pair of articles (see the IP's edit history). The URL is for a commercial job-recruiting site and has no value as a reliable information source; it is unlikely to be used as a valid external link from Wikipedia. The user has been given ample warning. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Removals. |
Was already agreed upon, didn't know I had to formally come here to officially request it. I'm a regular contributor to the site. JAF1970 ( talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am the main admin of the site, and it is nonprofit site for medical terminology. The site is of quality and really referenced in medical textbooks. Anyways I realize why the site was blacklisted: one of the admins made way to many references to it in several articles. To tell the truth I had full knowledge of this, and I will prevent this from happening again, anyways of note all the references really did reference the site and all articles were modified to be more accurate which I required the admin to do. I would hope that wikipedia can give us a second chance. Thanks, and sorry for disrupting wikipedia. Digirave ( talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand wikipedia's stance. Anyways the overreferencing of our site which we even considered wrong, stopped long before the ban, but on our defense the articles accuracy were improved through editing and new articles were created which are still used, although the overreferencing was wrong. We knew it was wrong so we stopped, we did not have any warnings and stopped before any warnings were given, so I hope wikipedia could could unban the link and give the site address a second chance. Digirave ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes we hope wikipedian's find it a reliable source. We license the complete American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, metasearch for MeSH, Stedman's, Merriam-Webster's, and several other medical dictionaries. For searching medical terminology we are recommended in the translated text of The Language of Medicine 7th edition by Davi-Ellen Chabner, translated by Park K.H., ISBN 897331389. Digirave ( talk)
I have no idea why this charity's name has been blacklisted. Does anyone else? 78.86.157.63 ( talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
See [37]
I think the site was blocked because of several links (without content) that I added to wiki pages recently. I will ensure this does not happen again. In future I will only add content and, if appropriate, citations to the source books using ISBN rather than links. Your help here is greatly appreciated Touchstone42 ( talk) 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This url is for Costa Rica's main newspaper, because of its good reputation and its daily circulation. Just go to www.nacion.com (La Nación) to confirm, really it must be someone's joke to have it as blacklisted as spam, for Costa Ricans this is the equivalent of blacklisting The New York Times or The Washington Post. This newspaper already appear as reference to several articles, and I myself have used a lot for Costa Rica's related articles in the past. Mariordo ( talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I moderate a Dungeon Keeper (a computer game by EA/Bullfrog) forum (which has been blacklisted), and have traditionally had links on Wikipedia on both Dungeon Keeper and Dungeon Keeper 2 articles. In the past 6 months or so these links have been routinely deleted or edited slightly (so that the URL is incorrect and doesn't link to the site). I know who is doing this, because I had the unfortunate task of banning some members on the forum I moderate - they created their own forum and replace our link with theirs. I have childishly resorted to doing that in response, but I can't keep it up and realise how petty it is.
When adding the URL to the forum today, on the DK page, I was told it had been "blacklisted". Now, I don't know how one goes about blacklisting a site, but I'm sure the process was started by the aforementioned people. Who did it is rather unimportant, what is important is when the link will be unblacklisted. The forum is almost certainly the largest and most active DK community, and has a lot of useful resources and related projects, tournaments and exclusive interviews. I think it would be a shame if DK fans could not access this useful information. Our forum has prospered with the link to Wikipedia (and hopefully vice versa), and I hope this doesn't end because of sour grapes from a select minority of wiki users.
I hope this can be resolved speedily, in the mean time I've been using a dot.tk URL - but the additional web adverts are not pleasant for visitors. BonnieDonny ( talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
www.newmexicoDOTorg is the website of the New Mexico Tourism Department, a state agency. I have no idea why it's on the Spam blacklist, but it certainly shouldn't be. Almost every NM tourist attraction in Wikipedia has a link to a New Mexico Tourism Department page. Please unlist promptly. Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This was a first - trying to edit the article about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, principally to cleanup and add sources, and gradually remove the conspiracy stuff. The website http://www.paperlessarchives.com/rfk_assassination.html has some references that are very useful for this, because they are the LAPD notes, which would allow me to reference the events of the evening appropriately for the section "Assassination". But I'm blocked from doing so. I presume this is because paperlessarchives.com sells information, but unfortunately I can't find this source listed anywhere else reliable online, and don;t have many books to hand on the subject! I understand if this is rejected, but I would appreciate some comment on this. The listing of this site took place in 2004. Fritzpoll ( talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
there is a lot of quality pictures from all around the Ukraine. I did the pictures myself. kind regards. thanks petr soukal petr.soukal@inmail.sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
hello, please can you let me know the reasons for listing my links on the blacklist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I work for the company that is based at this site, the main purpose of the site is legal search but we also host an extensive directory of law firms. These pages are maintained by people at the law firm's themselves, so will always be accurate and accepted material. For each firm we also list articles, events and press releases so it is a fairly comprehensive listing.
We had an overenthusiastic intern here recently, and I have a suspicion this he may have been trying to add a bunch of links to the Linex directory pages on Wikipedia, could this have caused the problem? Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.210.250 ( talk • contribs)
As mentioned I believe this was our colleague who was adding these links because he thought them of relevance to the given pages, they are directory listings and I see that for each law firm you often have one or more external directories as extra links. Can this domain be unlisted by any chance? The given directory pages hold further information regarding each law firm than is hosted on a Wikipedia page, offering original content produced by the law firm. Thank you— Blugano ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC).
Why is the official site of the Republic of Cabinda www.cabinda.net blocked by "some" wikipidia individuals "administrators". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.228.112 ( talk) 14:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This site was added and then removed some time back. The forum is the Fan Club of the Band. Additionally Irwin, Alfonso and the other band members use the site. In addition to the band members, a member of Sony BMG also use it and send over information and updates about The Hoosiers, often before other outlets such as their own site or the myspace blog etc. As such, this is an informative and active resource used by the fans and the members. It is felt that this is relevant to the entry for The Hoosiers as a result. If my stated reasons are not good enough, perhaps I could be pointed in the direction of some documentation that states how an item becomes relevant to an entry? :) Thank you very much! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.197.7 ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am Dr Andrew Salomoni, one of the admin of the site, we are an organization that do research for stress related problems. Our site offers a lot of free informations to people that suffers of stress, anxiety and depression. It is a quality well known website and referenced in medical textbooks. Looking that it was blacklisted from wikipedia, i was really surprised, since we were adding just few references in the right places for stress, anxiety and depression. So I attempted to understand what was happening…it looks like no one of us had never added more links or references to wikipedia, since last year. So our technical stuff, told us that probably the admin of some commercial website, attempted to spam with our website name on wikipedia to make us to be banned, and to create us some damage. I want to ask to you all sorry for all that happened, and I hope you will keep out from the black list our website, since it s really happening a lot of people with stress related problems, and what happened is just an attempt to create some damages to us. The truth is that they created damage to all the people that we could help in the future. Thank you very much for your time and your good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.177.200 ( talk) 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
galatta.com is a reliable source of information on Indian movies, mostly south Indian movies, there is absolutely no reason why this site shoud be blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.57.226 ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 May 2008
It is a useful source of information, referenced by Robert Jenkins (master mariner). -- Bowlhover ( talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Admins other than Hu12: I think it has been established by an independent third party (see Talk:Forensic_accounting) that these sites are indeed valuable to wikipedia and not spam. Can this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#R.T._Edwards.2C_Inc_links listing be removed? Thanks! Jheiv ( talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency." The article states that those involved included:
Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. [1]
He says I use "www.lulu.com", have no idea why and certainly that link is not being used. Could somebody look into this and/or explain the deeper meaning of this incorrect refusal? TIA Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Tried removing the link from the page [40] and as you said I can edit the page again. Thanks for helping out. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am getting spamfiltered on Veganism for this link: www.veganz.pl.net/introduction.htm
This has been a source in the article for some time, but only in the last two days does it seem to have been filtered. Problem is, I can't find it or something else that might catch it in either the WP or the meta blacklists. Hope me! Kellen T 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what I am trying to post:
I dont want to drag a great article into a revert war, so I'm bringing it up here. To me, "Rest of the world" seems very off hand-ish. Almost as though the "rest of the world" doesnt matter. Whereas "Other parts of the world" seems as though they are being included and not in an afterthought kind of a way. It could just be me, but since it was reverted, someone else thinks otherwise. Comments? (on a side note, this post was blocked twice due to a spam filter... that I was adding some odd link... I'm not, and this was a direct paste of the last time I tried to add this) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It wont post saying that I'm adding an indy media link... I'm not. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
There is no reason to block the SS Free ( http://www.ssfree-DOT-NET-DOT-TC-FORWARDSLASH).-- 4.244.36.79 ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
\b175799\.aceboard\.com\b \bamericanrevolutionarywar\.zoomshare\.com\b \bcbox\.ws\/?reforum\b \bcreateforum\.com\/phpbb\/?mforum\=reenactor\b \bfandomcomics\.com\b \bfinance\.groups\.yahoo\.com\/group\/Reenactor\b \bforums\.delphiforums\.com\/reenactor1\b \bforums\.delphiforums\.com\/reenactor2\b \bforums\.zoomshare\.com\/viewtopic\.php\?id\=15507&Reenactor%20Entertainment%20Tech%20Support\b \bforums\.zoomshare\.com\/viewtopic\.php\?pid\=113522#p113522\b \bfreeforum101\.com\/forum\/xgmx\.html\b \bfreewebs\.com\/beyondcomputing\b \bhalo-forum\.net\.tf\b \birc\.freenode\.net\/#reenactor\b \bmaxpages\.com\/ackuron\b \bmaxpages\.com\/planetgnome\b \bmaxpages\.com\/reenactor\b \bmaxpages\.com\/tache\b \bnewsimuniverse\.net\.tc\b \bplanetgnome\.net\.tc\/\b \breenactor\.forumer\.com\b \breenactor\.net\.tc\b \breenactor\.zoomshare\.com\b \breenactorentertainment\.websitewizard\.com\b \bs6\.invisionfree\.com\/Reenactor\/index\.php\b \bserenityonline\.websitewizard\.com\b \bssfree\.net\.tc\b \bssfree\.wikia\.com\b \bstardestroyer\.net\.tc\b \bswnsu\.com\b \bufda\.net\.tc\b \bus\.undernet\.org\/#reenactor\b \bxeboards\.com\/reenactor\b \bz10\.invisionfree\.com\/Civilization_At_War\b \bz13\.invisionfree\.com\/international_poker\b \bz7\.invisionfree\.com\/Beyond_Computing\/index\.php?\b \bz9\.invisionfree\.com\/Trollz\/index\.php?\b \blogitech.com\b \blucasarts.com\b \bssfree.net.tc\b \bstarcraft.ua.tc\b \b.wikia.com\b \b.invisionfree.com\b \b.fox.com\b \b.blizzard.com\b WTF!!!!!!!!-- 4.244.36.143 ( talk) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was the SS Free added in the first place?-- 4.244.36.143 ( talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you can't separate the behavior of a user and the value of a link. Can someone explain to me why a link would not be considered on its own merits, regardless of the behavior of the user who's attempted to add it? I'm concerned in general of the practice, but in the specific case of "asiafanclub.com" it seems that the reasons given are mostly in regard to the user, which in my mind should be an entirely separate issue to the value of the link in reference to the article. It almost seems, in this case, that it's an attempt to further "punish" this user, by not allowing the link. It seems to me that if we're being reasonable, we would consider the user and the link separately. Can anyone explain reasons otherwise? Thanks. -- Shubopshadangalang ( talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This template provides the header for this page.
Changes I made to the instructions for admins:
Comments? Suggestions? Feel free to revert or modify.
--
A. B. (
talk •
contribs)
15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. Please only use the basic URL (google.com not http://www.google.com). Please provide diffs to prove that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with {{ Done}} or {{ Notdone}} or other appropriate Indicator then archived. |
From Template:WikiProject Spam header:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:A._B./Sandbox17&diff=206339791&oldid=206339580
Comments:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is bizarre -- I just got blocked from editing a page because it claims http://www dot kernel dot org is blacklisted (dots added as otherwise I can't make this edit). (This is the main page for the Linux kernel development, and it is ridiculous to block it.)
I can't find any log explaining this crazy blocking; is it possible you have a bug?
—Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this site blacklisted? It looks like a very useful online journal. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a question which was deleted by Hu12. Prior to that, it had also been previously and swiftly closed for discussion by Hu12, and it remains unanswered. Assuming good faith, I'm willing to accept that Hu12 has simply misunderstood my intentions on this subject, however, I can't help but wonder about his/her neutrality on the subject. Though I have previously referenced one particular case as an example, this is a question about policy and its enforcement, not about that specific case. The question is restated below. I ask that feedback be given on this issue by administrators other than Hu12, as it seems he/she is clearly opposed to this being discussed at all.
I am restating the question in as neutral a manner as possible: Simply stated, my question is: Should article content not be considered with a neutral viewpoint? Or do other factors come into play?
Is there existing policy or precedent that dictates that the inclusion of a link should NOT be considered on its own merits, and with the support of neutral editors, when a conflict exists with one editor seeking to add that link, and that conflict results in WP:SPAM violations on the part of that user? It seems to me that if we all make edits under the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that content should be considered with a neutral point of view, INCLUDING cases in which an editor or administrator would have the tendency to "punish" another editor for breaking the rules by refusing to include the content that the offending user wishes to be included. Am I wrong about this? Is there a policy that suggests otherwise?
Also, if this is not the correct venue for this question to be answered, please direct me to an alternate venue. This is an issue that needs clarification for myself and other editors to be able to make the most of Wikipedia.
Thank you. -- Shubopshadangalang ( talk) 04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Shubopshadangalang, please stop beating a dead horse. MER-C 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I need to post a vandalism warning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.12.95.224 but I'm informed that I cannot do that due to this talk page being blacklisted. This seems ridiculous; can this please be undone post haste? Badagnani ( talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Additions. |
As per this discussion on WP:ANI. This site was being used in approximately 84 articles on Wikipedia-en, though I have removed some of these links. Site appears to be useful to cite material but fails to meet requirements set out in WP:RS (self-published, publisher claims "first draft", etc. etc.). -- Yamla ( talk) 14:53, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Done -- Yamla ( talk) 14:31, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
For logging purposes. See [1]
Several different SPAs keep inserting this link into Nancy Boyda. It's just one person's advocacy blog, not officially associated with Ms. Boyda. I'm tired of reverting it.-- Father Goose ( talk) 08:13, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Update: SPA is now using boydabloc.com. Need that boydablocked too.-- Father Goose ( talk) 20:35, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Monitored, putting it on XLinkBot. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 21:20, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
buddhabihar.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
Recurring and fairly obvious spam from dynamic IPs, see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2#spam.buddhabihar.com and WT:WPSPAM#spam.buddhabihar.com. MER-C 12:53, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
These IPs added several other dating sites but they appear to be unrelated.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 17:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Cheesy:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 23:48, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 01:31, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Non-notable fan blog persistently spammed to support NHL Quartley Editor's unreliable, POV, potentially libelous edits to our Sean Avery article.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 01:57, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
financemanila.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot- Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com -- spammer links this to all Philippine company articles. -- Howard the Duck 02:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
au-answers.com is already blacklisted:
Now another IP has spammed a link to a site that redirects to au-asnwers.com:
Still another site is also redirect:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 15:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A.B. has there ever been a site listed on here you haven't Done? I am not arguing these sites here. I am just wandering if you are researching these edits and proposals. There is no way you have researched all this information accurately. You haven't had time. Please make edits to only the sites you can review and investigate. This is designed to improve wikipedia.org. We have high standards here and many eager editors willing to help out and research material. Anyone can say Done without reviewing the material. It doesn't help anyone including yourself to just go through thousands of sites a day you didn't review. Yes you will get edit credits but they will come back to haunt you. You are doing the public a dis-service by not reviewing the information accurately.
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 22:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
More persistent dynamic IP spam. 212.116.220.73 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · filter log · WHOIS · RDNS · RBLs · http · block user · block log) has been blocked, only to spam again. See WikiProject Spam report. MER-C 12:53, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
There are two persons edit warring with each other to make sure their travel guide website is linked and the other is not on the article Ningbo. One is a single purpose account purely for spamming and reverts with no explanation.
As you can see nothing but making sure that his website is linked. Most probable spamming his own website. Checking the page history it looks like he uses sockpuppets to do this for almost a year.
Hermant patel ( talk) 12:08, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
This is actually a spam war. I put together an "order of battle" at WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 12:58, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
Thank you for your timely action. They didn't do anything, didn't contribute anything to wiki except trying to promote their dodgy travel guide websites. Also thanks for getting the other sites I missed - its so hard to keep track of the spamming. Hermant patel ( talk) 13:19, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The diffs and account involved above reveal the spamming history of the last week or so. But it appears to go back much further than that, at least several months... Elsendero ( talk) 14:24, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
See related report at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#mi-technologies
[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11], and [12]
User(s) have been warned, but continue to re-insert link whose only purpose is marketing/spam. Note: When warned that they would be blocked the next time the link was added, the anon at User talk:81.152.171.33, demonstrated that the warnings are being read by replying "I think you will have a problem because I edit from my internet cafe'! See ya Mike." --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 23:12, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
Agreed & Done, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 14:36, 7 May 2008 (UTC)
[15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]
User has been warned, but continues to re-insert link. -
Amog |
Talk
14:25, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I have added postchronicle.com to the blacklist for enWP due to a number of issues:
Post chronicle functions as a kind of tattle blog, much of the content is salacious gossip and a lot of the cites to it were for content about matters of controversial nudity or sexual misdemeanours - precisely the sort of content where the very best sources are necessary. Most were redundant to another cite to a much better source, fortunately.
Here's a classic example: www.postchronicle.com/news/entertainment/tittletattle/article_21219679.shtml - the content is "compiled from wire reports" (whose?) by a reporter of no known credentials, the header makes it look as if it might be syndicated but the copyright status is unclear, the original source appears to be a blog anyway, and there are so many ads that occasionally my browser crashes when viewing the site. The site states it carries syndicated and original content, but it's not clear which is which or indeed whether it is legitimately syndicated, rather than simply copied. The site plays fast and loose with copyright by its own admission, so this is a legitimate concern.
The site claims to be a news site, but has no obvious news gathering resources and no apparent accreditation as a news agency or source. Stories typically do not cite their sources, even when these are directly traceable to other sites or reputable news agencies.
Over a period of weeks I have removed all links in mainspace, the last hundred or so today. I am logging here for transparency and to ensure the addition is properly logged. Guy ( Help!) 21:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 03:31, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 12:19, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a site that gets spammed to many film articles. The usual form the spam takes is "A Chicago critic wrote..." or a link in the External links section. Here are diffs of spamming with prose. [29] [30] [31] [32]. Here are diffs of external link spamming. [33] [34] [35] You can look at the contributions of 68.72.112.61, 68.72.130.21, 216.177.119.154, 68.72.135.94, AdamFendelman and Happynesss. The page User:AdamFendelman says "I serve as [...] the publisher of HollywoodChicago.com. A WHOIS on GoDaddy.com says the site was created February 2007. Related to this are the AFD for HollywoodChicago.com, and the AFD for Adam Fendelman. This SSP report is also related. The account AdamFendelman has not edited since September 3, 2007. If you look here you can see that links to the site currently appear in 29 articles. Here is a thread from October 2007 by current WikiProject Films Coordinator Erik saying "What will it take to blacklist the site and purge Wikipedia of the promotional Adam Fendelman and HollywoodChicago.com?" This ANI thread from September 2007 is also related. -- Pixelface ( talk) 02:57, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Happynesss (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
AdamFendelman (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
68.72.125.161 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
199.44.26.69 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.143.104 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.128.91 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.137.246 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
68.72.135.46 (
talk •
contribs •
deleted contribs •
blacklist hits •
AbuseLog •
what links to user page •
COIBot •
Spamcheck •
count •
block log •
x-wiki •
Edit filter search •
WHOIS •
RDNS •
tracert •
robtex.com •
StopForumSpam •
Google •
AboutUs •
Project HoneyPot)
207.181.251.96 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
68.72.119.223 (
talk ·
contribs ·
deleted contribs ·
blacklist hits ·
AbuseLog ·
what links to user page ·
count ·
COIBot ·
Spamcheck ·
user page logs ·
x-wiki ·
status ·
Edit filter search ·
Google ·
StopForumSpam)
Done--
Hu12 (
talk)
03:19, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
Per [36], I have blacklisted this site due to spamming by a number of IPs all apparently the same individual. Guy ( Help!) 18:10, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Request local blacklisting per Talk:Dana DeArmond#Official website. Apparently this is not her official website, but an unapproved impostor site. Insertions have already resulted in the Foundation being contacted, and anon IPs continue to insert link to this impostor site. Kelly hi! 18:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This URL is being spammed repeatedly by an SPA to a specific pair of articles (see the IP's edit history). The URL is for a commercial job-recruiting site and has no value as a reliable information source; it is unlikely to be used as a valid external link from Wikipedia. The user has been given ample warning. Ham Pastrami ( talk) 23:31, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Removals. |
Was already agreed upon, didn't know I had to formally come here to officially request it. I'm a regular contributor to the site. JAF1970 ( talk) 19:05, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
I am the main admin of the site, and it is nonprofit site for medical terminology. The site is of quality and really referenced in medical textbooks. Anyways I realize why the site was blacklisted: one of the admins made way to many references to it in several articles. To tell the truth I had full knowledge of this, and I will prevent this from happening again, anyways of note all the references really did reference the site and all articles were modified to be more accurate which I required the admin to do. I would hope that wikipedia can give us a second chance. Thanks, and sorry for disrupting wikipedia. Digirave ( talk) 13:15, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
I completely understand wikipedia's stance. Anyways the overreferencing of our site which we even considered wrong, stopped long before the ban, but on our defense the articles accuracy were improved through editing and new articles were created which are still used, although the overreferencing was wrong. We knew it was wrong so we stopped, we did not have any warnings and stopped before any warnings were given, so I hope wikipedia could could unban the link and give the site address a second chance. Digirave ( talk) —Preceding comment was added at 05:56, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes we hope wikipedian's find it a reliable source. We license the complete American Heritage Stedman's Medical Dictionary, metasearch for MeSH, Stedman's, Merriam-Webster's, and several other medical dictionaries. For searching medical terminology we are recommended in the translated text of The Language of Medicine 7th edition by Davi-Ellen Chabner, translated by Park K.H., ISBN 897331389. Digirave ( talk)
I have no idea why this charity's name has been blacklisted. Does anyone else? 78.86.157.63 ( talk) 21:30, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
See [37]
I think the site was blocked because of several links (without content) that I added to wiki pages recently. I will ensure this does not happen again. In future I will only add content and, if appropriate, citations to the source books using ISBN rather than links. Your help here is greatly appreciated Touchstone42 ( talk) 11:15, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This url is for Costa Rica's main newspaper, because of its good reputation and its daily circulation. Just go to www.nacion.com (La Nación) to confirm, really it must be someone's joke to have it as blacklisted as spam, for Costa Ricans this is the equivalent of blacklisting The New York Times or The Washington Post. This newspaper already appear as reference to several articles, and I myself have used a lot for Costa Rica's related articles in the past. Mariordo ( talk) 14:24, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
I moderate a Dungeon Keeper (a computer game by EA/Bullfrog) forum (which has been blacklisted), and have traditionally had links on Wikipedia on both Dungeon Keeper and Dungeon Keeper 2 articles. In the past 6 months or so these links have been routinely deleted or edited slightly (so that the URL is incorrect and doesn't link to the site). I know who is doing this, because I had the unfortunate task of banning some members on the forum I moderate - they created their own forum and replace our link with theirs. I have childishly resorted to doing that in response, but I can't keep it up and realise how petty it is.
When adding the URL to the forum today, on the DK page, I was told it had been "blacklisted". Now, I don't know how one goes about blacklisting a site, but I'm sure the process was started by the aforementioned people. Who did it is rather unimportant, what is important is when the link will be unblacklisted. The forum is almost certainly the largest and most active DK community, and has a lot of useful resources and related projects, tournaments and exclusive interviews. I think it would be a shame if DK fans could not access this useful information. Our forum has prospered with the link to Wikipedia (and hopefully vice versa), and I hope this doesn't end because of sour grapes from a select minority of wiki users.
I hope this can be resolved speedily, in the mean time I've been using a dot.tk URL - but the additional web adverts are not pleasant for visitors. BonnieDonny ( talk) 17:53, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
www.newmexicoDOTorg is the website of the New Mexico Tourism Department, a state agency. I have no idea why it's on the Spam blacklist, but it certainly shouldn't be. Almost every NM tourist attraction in Wikipedia has a link to a New Mexico Tourism Department page. Please unlist promptly. Pete Tillman ( talk) 19:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This was a first - trying to edit the article about Robert F. Kennedy's assassination, principally to cleanup and add sources, and gradually remove the conspiracy stuff. The website http://www.paperlessarchives.com/rfk_assassination.html has some references that are very useful for this, because they are the LAPD notes, which would allow me to reference the events of the evening appropriately for the section "Assassination". But I'm blocked from doing so. I presume this is because paperlessarchives.com sells information, but unfortunately I can't find this source listed anywhere else reliable online, and don;t have many books to hand on the subject! I understand if this is rejected, but I would appreciate some comment on this. The listing of this site took place in 2004. Fritzpoll ( talk) 20:41, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
there is a lot of quality pictures from all around the Ukraine. I did the pictures myself. kind regards. thanks petr soukal petr.soukal@inmail.sk —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace ( talk • contribs) 22:37, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
hello, please can you let me know the reasons for listing my links on the blacklist? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Autorizace ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I work for the company that is based at this site, the main purpose of the site is legal search but we also host an extensive directory of law firms. These pages are maintained by people at the law firm's themselves, so will always be accurate and accepted material. For each firm we also list articles, events and press releases so it is a fairly comprehensive listing.
We had an overenthusiastic intern here recently, and I have a suspicion this he may have been trying to add a bunch of links to the Linex directory pages on Wikipedia, could this have caused the problem? Thank you— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.149.210.250 ( talk • contribs)
As mentioned I believe this was our colleague who was adding these links because he thought them of relevance to the given pages, they are directory listings and I see that for each law firm you often have one or more external directories as extra links. Can this domain be unlisted by any chance? The given directory pages hold further information regarding each law firm than is hosted on a Wikipedia page, offering original content produced by the law firm. Thank you— Blugano ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:23, 28 April 2008 (UTC).
Why is the official site of the Republic of Cabinda www.cabinda.net blocked by "some" wikipidia individuals "administrators". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.211.228.112 ( talk) 14:49, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
This site was added and then removed some time back. The forum is the Fan Club of the Band. Additionally Irwin, Alfonso and the other band members use the site. In addition to the band members, a member of Sony BMG also use it and send over information and updates about The Hoosiers, often before other outlets such as their own site or the myspace blog etc. As such, this is an informative and active resource used by the fans and the members. It is felt that this is relevant to the entry for The Hoosiers as a result. If my stated reasons are not good enough, perhaps I could be pointed in the direction of some documentation that states how an item becomes relevant to an entry? :) Thank you very much! :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.101.197.7 ( talk) 19:44, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I am Dr Andrew Salomoni, one of the admin of the site, we are an organization that do research for stress related problems. Our site offers a lot of free informations to people that suffers of stress, anxiety and depression. It is a quality well known website and referenced in medical textbooks. Looking that it was blacklisted from wikipedia, i was really surprised, since we were adding just few references in the right places for stress, anxiety and depression. So I attempted to understand what was happening…it looks like no one of us had never added more links or references to wikipedia, since last year. So our technical stuff, told us that probably the admin of some commercial website, attempted to spam with our website name on wikipedia to make us to be banned, and to create us some damage. I want to ask to you all sorry for all that happened, and I hope you will keep out from the black list our website, since it s really happening a lot of people with stress related problems, and what happened is just an attempt to create some damages to us. The truth is that they created damage to all the people that we could help in the future. Thank you very much for your time and your good work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.225.177.200 ( talk) 00:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)
galatta.com is a reliable source of information on Indian movies, mostly south Indian movies, there is absolutely no reason why this site shoud be blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.99.57.226 ( talk • contribs) 10:55, 11 May 2008
It is a useful source of information, referenced by Robert Jenkins (master mariner). -- Bowlhover ( talk) 15:12, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Admins other than Hu12: I think it has been established by an independent third party (see Talk:Forensic_accounting) that these sites are indeed valuable to wikipedia and not spam. Can this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#R.T._Edwards.2C_Inc_links listing be removed? Thanks! Jheiv ( talk) 19:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Troubleshooting and problems. |
ABC News reported on April 9, 2008 that "the most senior Bush administration officials discussed and approved specific details of how high-value al Qaeda suspects would be interrogated by the Central Intelligence Agency." The article states that those involved included:
Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft. [1]
He says I use "www.lulu.com", have no idea why and certainly that link is not being used. Could somebody look into this and/or explain the deeper meaning of this incorrect refusal? TIA Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 17:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Tried removing the link from the page [40] and as you said I can edit the page again. Thanks for helping out. Nomen Nescio Gnothi seauton 14:30, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
I am getting spamfiltered on Veganism for this link: www.veganz.pl.net/introduction.htm
This has been a source in the article for some time, but only in the last two days does it seem to have been filtered. Problem is, I can't find it or something else that might catch it in either the WP or the meta blacklists. Hope me! Kellen T 10:40, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what I am trying to post:
I dont want to drag a great article into a revert war, so I'm bringing it up here. To me, "Rest of the world" seems very off hand-ish. Almost as though the "rest of the world" doesnt matter. Whereas "Other parts of the world" seems as though they are being included and not in an afterthought kind of a way. It could just be me, but since it was reverted, someone else thinks otherwise. Comments? (on a side note, this post was blocked twice due to a spam filter... that I was adding some odd link... I'm not, and this was a direct paste of the last time I tried to add this) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
It wont post saying that I'm adding an indy media link... I'm not. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
This section is for archiving Discussions. |
There is no reason to block the SS Free ( http://www.ssfree-DOT-NET-DOT-TC-FORWARDSLASH).-- 4.244.36.79 ( talk) 17:47, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
\b175799\.aceboard\.com\b \bamericanrevolutionarywar\.zoomshare\.com\b \bcbox\.ws\/?reforum\b \bcreateforum\.com\/phpbb\/?mforum\=reenactor\b \bfandomcomics\.com\b \bfinance\.groups\.yahoo\.com\/group\/Reenactor\b \bforums\.delphiforums\.com\/reenactor1\b \bforums\.delphiforums\.com\/reenactor2\b \bforums\.zoomshare\.com\/viewtopic\.php\?id\=15507&Reenactor%20Entertainment%20Tech%20Support\b \bforums\.zoomshare\.com\/viewtopic\.php\?pid\=113522#p113522\b \bfreeforum101\.com\/forum\/xgmx\.html\b \bfreewebs\.com\/beyondcomputing\b \bhalo-forum\.net\.tf\b \birc\.freenode\.net\/#reenactor\b \bmaxpages\.com\/ackuron\b \bmaxpages\.com\/planetgnome\b \bmaxpages\.com\/reenactor\b \bmaxpages\.com\/tache\b \bnewsimuniverse\.net\.tc\b \bplanetgnome\.net\.tc\/\b \breenactor\.forumer\.com\b \breenactor\.net\.tc\b \breenactor\.zoomshare\.com\b \breenactorentertainment\.websitewizard\.com\b \bs6\.invisionfree\.com\/Reenactor\/index\.php\b \bserenityonline\.websitewizard\.com\b \bssfree\.net\.tc\b \bssfree\.wikia\.com\b \bstardestroyer\.net\.tc\b \bswnsu\.com\b \bufda\.net\.tc\b \bus\.undernet\.org\/#reenactor\b \bxeboards\.com\/reenactor\b \bz10\.invisionfree\.com\/Civilization_At_War\b \bz13\.invisionfree\.com\/international_poker\b \bz7\.invisionfree\.com\/Beyond_Computing\/index\.php?\b \bz9\.invisionfree\.com\/Trollz\/index\.php?\b \blogitech.com\b \blucasarts.com\b \bssfree.net.tc\b \bstarcraft.ua.tc\b \b.wikia.com\b \b.invisionfree.com\b \b.fox.com\b \b.blizzard.com\b WTF!!!!!!!!-- 4.244.36.143 ( talk) 18:36, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
Why was the SS Free added in the first place?-- 4.244.36.143 ( talk) 19:13, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
I really don't understand why you can't separate the behavior of a user and the value of a link. Can someone explain to me why a link would not be considered on its own merits, regardless of the behavior of the user who's attempted to add it? I'm concerned in general of the practice, but in the specific case of "asiafanclub.com" it seems that the reasons given are mostly in regard to the user, which in my mind should be an entirely separate issue to the value of the link in reference to the article. It almost seems, in this case, that it's an attempt to further "punish" this user, by not allowing the link. It seems to me that if we're being reasonable, we would consider the user and the link separately. Can anyone explain reasons otherwise? Thanks. -- Shubopshadangalang ( talk) 15:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
This template provides the header for this page.
Changes I made to the instructions for admins:
Comments? Suggestions? Feel free to revert or modify.
--
A. B. (
talk •
contribs)
15:43, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Please add new entries to the bottom of this section. Please only use the basic URL (google.com not http://www.google.com). Please provide diffs to prove that there has been spamming! Completed requests should be marked with {{ Done}} or {{ Notdone}} or other appropriate Indicator then archived. |
From Template:WikiProject Spam header:
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=User:A._B./Sandbox17&diff=206339791&oldid=206339580
Comments:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This is bizarre -- I just got blocked from editing a page because it claims http://www dot kernel dot org is blacklisted (dots added as otherwise I can't make this edit). (This is the main page for the Linux kernel development, and it is ridiculous to block it.)
I can't find any log explaining this crazy blocking; is it possible you have a bug?
—Steven G. Johnson ( talk) 17:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Why is this site blacklisted? It looks like a very useful online journal. -- jbmurray ( talk| contribs) 07:20, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
This is a question which was deleted by Hu12. Prior to that, it had also been previously and swiftly closed for discussion by Hu12, and it remains unanswered. Assuming good faith, I'm willing to accept that Hu12 has simply misunderstood my intentions on this subject, however, I can't help but wonder about his/her neutrality on the subject. Though I have previously referenced one particular case as an example, this is a question about policy and its enforcement, not about that specific case. The question is restated below. I ask that feedback be given on this issue by administrators other than Hu12, as it seems he/she is clearly opposed to this being discussed at all.
I am restating the question in as neutral a manner as possible: Simply stated, my question is: Should article content not be considered with a neutral viewpoint? Or do other factors come into play?
Is there existing policy or precedent that dictates that the inclusion of a link should NOT be considered on its own merits, and with the support of neutral editors, when a conflict exists with one editor seeking to add that link, and that conflict results in WP:SPAM violations on the part of that user? It seems to me that if we all make edits under the idea that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia that content should be considered with a neutral point of view, INCLUDING cases in which an editor or administrator would have the tendency to "punish" another editor for breaking the rules by refusing to include the content that the offending user wishes to be included. Am I wrong about this? Is there a policy that suggests otherwise?
Also, if this is not the correct venue for this question to be answered, please direct me to an alternate venue. This is an issue that needs clarification for myself and other editors to be able to make the most of Wikipedia.
Thank you. -- Shubopshadangalang ( talk) 04:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Shubopshadangalang, please stop beating a dead horse. MER-C 06:57, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I need to post a vandalism warning at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:92.12.95.224 but I'm informed that I cannot do that due to this talk page being blacklisted. This seems ridiculous; can this please be undone post haste? Badagnani ( talk) 07:13, 1 May 2008 (UTC)