Site is dead. Its presence on the blacklist prevents fixing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April. SilverbackNet talk 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Site is dead. Its presence on the blacklist prevents fixing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February. SilverbackNet talk 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a new Wikipedia user. Tutorialspoint is a educational website that is very useful and most definitely not spam. I have personally used the site for the last three years, it does not contain any objectionable content. It contains valuable study materials in the fields of Computer Science and Information Technology. It is used by a large number of students and If we are able to cite the materials at tutorialspoint it will be helpful to a lot of people. Please consider removing it from the blacklist. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraam subramanian ( talk • contribs)
I copy a thread from WP:HD.
Any attempt to edit Apartheid seems to be rejected. The reason given is that the article contains a new link to banned site econlib.org (or something close -- I may have gotten it wrong. The edits I have attmpted don't include anything remotely close to that. Can somebody find out what's wrong and fix it? In the See also section, I was trying to add a wikilink to Born a Crime. Lou Sander ( talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't explain what's going on. When I try to do the same thing (both with my non-admin sock and my main account), I get MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext and a warning about econlib.org, even though that URL isn't in the page text. Nyttend ( talk) 04:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Even weirder: I removed econlib from the spam blacklist and then tried to insert the link, and even then I got rejected because my edit added "econlib.org". Time for a Phabricator bug request? In case you wonder, I've restored the blacklist entry for econlib. Nyttend ( talk) 05:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what's going on? See [1] for URL removal and click "next" for restoration. JzG, you comment about that URL in a thread higher on this page; are you at all familiar with the situation? I'm not asking for "permanent" removal; I just wondered if someone more familiar with this blacklist might have a better idea than I of how to remove it temporarily to enable this edit. Nyttend ( talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: econlib.org probably shouldn't be on the blacklist. It contains the full text of many classical economics texts. Jrheller1 ( talk) 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move - David Gerard ( talk) 23:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm by no means a right wing libertarian, quite the opposite (check my history). I may not like much of what econlib.org publishes, but as an economist, I can appreciate the quality of many of the articles in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. For example, the article on Keynesian economics (which I can't link, because of the blacklist) is by Alan Blinder, a professor at Princeton with a named chair, who was President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. However, the quality is patchy, as there are some unreliable articles as well. Perhaps a whitelist for links starting with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/" so that articles from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics can be referenced, with a caveat that the reliability of the articles depends on the author? Thanks, LK ( talk) 07:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be just removing econlib.org citations. We should be actually changing the citations to point to Wikisource. (If Wikisource doesn't have the content yet, then it should be copied over there.) Otherwise, we run the risk that articles will get deleted for being unsourced. See., e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian perspectives on natural resources. But actually, I would support removing it altogether from the blacklist. N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 23:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is an example of the heavy-handed editing; the edit removes the mention of and reference to an Econlib material - but also takes out two unrelated books. Jonpatterns ( talk) 13:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe from the discussion above, that there may be consensus for whitelisting within econlib, links begining with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/". This will allow articles from the online Concise Encyclopedia of Economics to be used, as these articles are usually written by experts in their fields, and are not available anywhere else. I'ld like to run a quick poll to check consensus.
Here's why I am having a hard time assuming good faith re this source. During cleanup activities, I have found a very large number of {{ cite encyclopaedia}} links to econlib, often but by no means always dded by the same editor (not Vipul). In many cases it is the only entry in "further reading". Big red flag for a site with an openly declared fundamentalist POV. In some cases, e.g. Road pricing, Congestion pricing, Traffic congestion, Rapid transit, Public transport, exactly the same econlib article has been linked from multiple articles, often on subjects where the economic POV is tangential and the fundamentalist libertarian economic POV even more so. Guy ( Help!) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The CEE is run by a Libertarian group, but it includes articles authored by Keynesian and left-wing economists like James Tobin, Clinton-appointee Alan Blinder, and Obama's head of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. The CEE is a freely-accessible, high-quality, reference work on economics. I think it's disturbing that we are blacklisting a site based on the ideological views it represents. This violates WP:NPOV.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I've started compiling a list of when Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEC) links were added to check for spamming. It also lists author which may be useful for checking likely bias. User:Jonpatterns/Analysis_of_the_Concise_Encyclopedia_of_Economics. Editor are welcome to help. Jonpatterns ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The sponsor of Econlib is Liberty Fund. This organization is listed as number 74 out of the 150 Best Independent think tanks world-wide by the 2017 Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program listing. See: here, page 144. The organization is NOT some small fly-by night evil libertarian group, but is a valuable resource for readers. Come-on, PLEASE. Do the right thing and get their links off of the blacklist. Not doing so is wrong, and it only hampers editors who want to provide worthwhile material for the readers. The spamming issue is a red herring, nothing more. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC) @ Nyttend: 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 04:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
ALCON: I've posted a request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spam-blacklist Admin needed for assistance in getting econlib off the blacklist. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove EconLib.org and associated domains econlog.econlib.org/ EconLog and econlib.org/library/CEE Concise Encyclopedia of Economics from the spam blacklist? EconLib is often-referenced and generally well-regarded as a econlib.org/library/About.html source for libertarian, AND other economics articles. Yes, it is true that EconLog is a blog, but it is repeatedly included in the Wall Street Journal's Top 25 Economics Blogs. The description for econlib.org/library/About.html#CEE Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, edited by David R. Henderson, reads as follows: "This highly acclaimed economics encyclopedia was first published in 1993 under the title The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. It features easy-to-read articles by over 150 top economists, including Nobel Prize winners, over 80 biographies of famous economists, and many tables and charts illustrating economics in action...the Econlib edition of this work includes links, additions, and corrections." Given that, it is absurd to see EconLib.org (listed as \beconlib\.org\b in the Spam-blacklist) included among blacklisted domains such as
EconLib doesn't belong there.
I realize that editor Vipul Naik has massively spammed links to econlib.org, econlong.econlib.org and CEE. I've seen the warnings. I also did some checking and found an awful lot of gratuitous links to the root and subdomain of econlib and econlog associated with article talk pages, user spaces of Vipul's and so forth, so I am totally sympathetic to this comment, written (persuasively) by Guy: "he spammed it multiple times - virtually every articles that he edited or wrote where it could possibly be crowbarred in, it was. And there are articles that had five or more External Links to econlib, but none to any other think tank. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been abused, whether through zealotry or whether it's spamming is pretty much immaterial". I am not a fan of libertarian economics or Bryan Caplan (who has an almost cult following in certain circles of Rationality), but all readers of Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to suffer because one (or several) editors find the site irresistible and spam it everywhere.
To quantify the extent of the spamming, of the first 500 occurrences in mainspace for EconLib.org/library (Concise Encyclopedia of Econ),
48 are in Vipul's user space.
The EconLog blog is more of a Vipul-related problem. Of the 78 occurrences in mainspace for econlog.econlib.org,
over half (45) are in Vipul's own user space.
EDIT: I think that
Beetstra confirmed this
here, in August 2017, which I didn't notice until now...sorry.
Please, can something be done about this? I was editing the biography of mid-19th century economist and logician William Stanley Jevons. Look at the prominent display of relevant EconLib.org/library sources, plopped right on top of the page with the Category:Tagged_pages_containing_blacklisted_links. For that particular economist, Jevons, EconLib is one of the more accessible (comprehensive, no paywall) sources available, but we aren't allowed to reference it because of the obsessive spamming of the site by one (or a few?) editors.-- FeralOink ( talk) 12:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Vidme is a growing video platform that many are seeing as a YouTube alternative. In recent years, many creators decide to jump ship to this site after the so-called "Adpocalypse". I'm trying to create an article, but, apparently, the link is blockbed. JWthaMajestic ( talk) 19:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Editor is trying to circumvent blacklist by adding search-engine results. Trying to block some of these:
\b(google
\b(google
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Junk Indian blog site being added by IP addresses to multiple articles for a while - see
[5] in December 2016 and
this lovely masterpiece from today. Listed two IP's but it's been spammed by more.
Ravensfire (
talk)
14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Frequently added unreliable source.
Burning Pillar (
talk)
15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I attempted to link to an article on the page but apparently the site is blocked although it is near the top of the results for searches in the subject on Bing. Phillip.13 ( talk) 04:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
let's hat this totally derailed discussion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Actually both panendeism.org and panendeism.webs.com, which are the same group. Spamming of website created to promote WP:NEOLOGISM on multiple wikis. Wikipedia: [6], [7]. Wikiquote: [8]. Wiktionary: [9], [10]. Wikiquote deletion proposal brought out a pack of sock/meatpuppets, so dealing with a single user won't do it. Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Spam for personal blog, 2 final warnings (the first immediate one was a bit harsh imo, so I added a second notice to explain the problem in more detail). Both warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This domain name infosecinstitute.com seems to be a reputable U.S. based organization, doing IT and information security training. Read more on
that Wikipedia article. Also that domain name was repeatedly used as a source by well known notable mass medias, including Bloomberg News, Washington Post, Better Business Bureau (BBB), POLITICO, VICE News. Sources are in
that Wikipedia article. But that domain name is listed on the wikipedia blacklist under \binfosecinstitute\.com\b
Wikipedia article. But as of May 14, 2017 there are
no log supporting why it was added. Maybe a typography, maybe a mistake, maybe an electronic glitch? I vote to remove infosecinstitute.com from the blacklist.
Steps to reproduce error:
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
Francewhoa ( talk) 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Collecting here from socks.
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Being creative. Already blacklisted. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.*NEETnews.*
related spam. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.*mbbs.*donation.*
.*donation.*mbbs.*
Another one. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
mdms
mbbs
May give some false positives, but this will not have this much extra use. These terms are nice for XLinkBot as such. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.*NEETMEDICALADMISSION.*
Another term. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
tulamba.cf: 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
An IP and a new editor are trying repeatedly to add this site as an "official" Web site to the article at Tulamba, when it is clearly a personal Web site under development. General Ization Talk 14:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Various websites being spammed with exam results (really links to the official site), been removing these as I see them but enough articles were hit today that it's time to just block them. Generally from IP addresses but sometimes from one-shot new users. See recent history of SSLC, Haryana Board of School Education and Kerala State Education Board for some examples. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Plz remove line \bimhabib\.com\b from this list. actually some months before I was editing some stuff then Wikipedia block this site plz unblock I hate spamming next time I will take care of this thanks Tkabadsha ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Plz remove line \bimhabib\.com\b from this list. actually some months before I was editing some stuff then Wikipedia block this site plz unblock I hate spamming next time I will take care of this thanks Tkabadsha ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering why opposingviews.com is banned? It is cited in Cockfight#India but without the url unfortunately. I can't see any reason to exclude this website eg Wikipedia_WikiProject Spam_LinkReports_opposingviews.com tells me nothing obvious. Over to youse... DadaNeem ( talk) 09:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
spammed by
Promotional review site conveniently linking to Amazon shop offers. No author info, no credentials, no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe ( talk) 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Site appears to host videos for download in violation of copyrights. Site appears to contain malware. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Site is dead. Its presence on the blacklist prevents fixing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 April. SilverbackNet talk 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Site is dead. Its presence on the blacklist prevents fixing Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February. SilverbackNet talk 01:14, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm a new Wikipedia user. Tutorialspoint is a educational website that is very useful and most definitely not spam. I have personally used the site for the last three years, it does not contain any objectionable content. It contains valuable study materials in the fields of Computer Science and Information Technology. It is used by a large number of students and If we are able to cite the materials at tutorialspoint it will be helpful to a lot of people. Please consider removing it from the blacklist. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Sivaraam subramanian ( talk • contribs)
I copy a thread from WP:HD.
Any attempt to edit Apartheid seems to be rejected. The reason given is that the article contains a new link to banned site econlib.org (or something close -- I may have gotten it wrong. The edits I have attmpted don't include anything remotely close to that. Can somebody find out what's wrong and fix it? In the See also section, I was trying to add a wikilink to Born a Crime. Lou Sander ( talk) 04:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- I can't explain what's going on. When I try to do the same thing (both with my non-admin sock and my main account), I get MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext and a warning about econlib.org, even though that URL isn't in the page text. Nyttend ( talk) 04:59, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
- Even weirder: I removed econlib from the spam blacklist and then tried to insert the link, and even then I got rejected because my edit added "econlib.org". Time for a Phabricator bug request? In case you wonder, I've restored the blacklist entry for econlib. Nyttend ( talk) 05:03, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Can anyone explain what's going on? See [1] for URL removal and click "next" for restoration. JzG, you comment about that URL in a thread higher on this page; are you at all familiar with the situation? I'm not asking for "permanent" removal; I just wondered if someone more familiar with this blacklist might have a better idea than I of how to remove it temporarily to enable this edit. Nyttend ( talk) 05:08, 19 March 2017 (UTC)
Comment: econlib.org probably shouldn't be on the blacklist. It contains the full text of many classical economics texts. Jrheller1 ( talk) 20:58, 20 March 2017 (UTC)
This is not appropriate to blacklist in its entirety. Surely dealing with the actual spammers is the first move - David Gerard ( talk) 23:21, 29 March 2017 (UTC)
I'm by no means a right wing libertarian, quite the opposite (check my history). I may not like much of what econlib.org publishes, but as an economist, I can appreciate the quality of many of the articles in the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics. For example, the article on Keynesian economics (which I can't link, because of the blacklist) is by Alan Blinder, a professor at Princeton with a named chair, who was President Bill Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers. However, the quality is patchy, as there are some unreliable articles as well. Perhaps a whitelist for links starting with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/" so that articles from the Concise Encyclopedia of Economics can be referenced, with a caveat that the reliability of the articles depends on the author? Thanks, LK ( talk) 07:42, 1 April 2017 (UTC)
We shouldn't be just removing econlib.org citations. We should be actually changing the citations to point to Wikisource. (If Wikisource doesn't have the content yet, then it should be copied over there.) Otherwise, we run the risk that articles will get deleted for being unsourced. See., e.g., Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Libertarian perspectives on natural resources. But actually, I would support removing it altogether from the blacklist. N I H I L I S T I C ( talk) 23:59, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Here is an example of the heavy-handed editing; the edit removes the mention of and reference to an Econlib material - but also takes out two unrelated books. Jonpatterns ( talk) 13:11, 9 April 2017 (UTC)
I believe from the discussion above, that there may be consensus for whitelisting within econlib, links begining with "www.econlib.org/library/Enc/". This will allow articles from the online Concise Encyclopedia of Economics to be used, as these articles are usually written by experts in their fields, and are not available anywhere else. I'ld like to run a quick poll to check consensus.
Here's why I am having a hard time assuming good faith re this source. During cleanup activities, I have found a very large number of {{ cite encyclopaedia}} links to econlib, often but by no means always dded by the same editor (not Vipul). In many cases it is the only entry in "further reading". Big red flag for a site with an openly declared fundamentalist POV. In some cases, e.g. Road pricing, Congestion pricing, Traffic congestion, Rapid transit, Public transport, exactly the same econlib article has been linked from multiple articles, often on subjects where the economic POV is tangential and the fundamentalist libertarian economic POV even more so. Guy ( Help!) 22:59, 11 April 2017 (UTC)
The CEE is run by a Libertarian group, but it includes articles authored by Keynesian and left-wing economists like James Tobin, Clinton-appointee Alan Blinder, and Obama's head of the Council of Economic Advisors Christina Romer. The CEE is a freely-accessible, high-quality, reference work on economics. I think it's disturbing that we are blacklisting a site based on the ideological views it represents. This violates WP:NPOV.-- Bkwillwm ( talk) 17:09, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
I've started compiling a list of when Concise Encyclopedia of Economics (CEC) links were added to check for spamming. It also lists author which may be useful for checking likely bias. User:Jonpatterns/Analysis_of_the_Concise_Encyclopedia_of_Economics. Editor are welcome to help. Jonpatterns ( talk) 19:34, 12 April 2017 (UTC)
The sponsor of Econlib is Liberty Fund. This organization is listed as number 74 out of the 150 Best Independent think tanks world-wide by the 2017 Think Tanks and Civil Societies Program listing. See: here, page 144. The organization is NOT some small fly-by night evil libertarian group, but is a valuable resource for readers. Come-on, PLEASE. Do the right thing and get their links off of the blacklist. Not doing so is wrong, and it only hampers editors who want to provide worthwhile material for the readers. The spamming issue is a red herring, nothing more. – S. Rich ( talk) 23:49, 23 April 2017 (UTC) @ Nyttend: 00:08, 24 April 2017 (UTC) 04:32, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
ALCON: I've posted a request at WP:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Spam-blacklist Admin needed for assistance in getting econlib off the blacklist. – S. Rich ( talk) 15:54, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
Can we remove EconLib.org and associated domains econlog.econlib.org/ EconLog and econlib.org/library/CEE Concise Encyclopedia of Economics from the spam blacklist? EconLib is often-referenced and generally well-regarded as a econlib.org/library/About.html source for libertarian, AND other economics articles. Yes, it is true that EconLog is a blog, but it is repeatedly included in the Wall Street Journal's Top 25 Economics Blogs. The description for econlib.org/library/About.html#CEE Concise Encyclopedia of Economics, edited by David R. Henderson, reads as follows: "This highly acclaimed economics encyclopedia was first published in 1993 under the title The Fortune Encyclopedia of Economics. It features easy-to-read articles by over 150 top economists, including Nobel Prize winners, over 80 biographies of famous economists, and many tables and charts illustrating economics in action...the Econlib edition of this work includes links, additions, and corrections." Given that, it is absurd to see EconLib.org (listed as \beconlib\.org\b in the Spam-blacklist) included among blacklisted domains such as
EconLib doesn't belong there.
I realize that editor Vipul Naik has massively spammed links to econlib.org, econlong.econlib.org and CEE. I've seen the warnings. I also did some checking and found an awful lot of gratuitous links to the root and subdomain of econlib and econlog associated with article talk pages, user spaces of Vipul's and so forth, so I am totally sympathetic to this comment, written (persuasively) by Guy: "he spammed it multiple times - virtually every articles that he edited or wrote where it could possibly be crowbarred in, it was. And there are articles that had five or more External Links to econlib, but none to any other think tank. There is no doubt in my mind that this has been abused, whether through zealotry or whether it's spamming is pretty much immaterial". I am not a fan of libertarian economics or Bryan Caplan (who has an almost cult following in certain circles of Rationality), but all readers of Wikipedia shouldn't be forced to suffer because one (or several) editors find the site irresistible and spam it everywhere.
To quantify the extent of the spamming, of the first 500 occurrences in mainspace for EconLib.org/library (Concise Encyclopedia of Econ),
48 are in Vipul's user space.
The EconLog blog is more of a Vipul-related problem. Of the 78 occurrences in mainspace for econlog.econlib.org,
over half (45) are in Vipul's own user space.
EDIT: I think that
Beetstra confirmed this
here, in August 2017, which I didn't notice until now...sorry.
Please, can something be done about this? I was editing the biography of mid-19th century economist and logician William Stanley Jevons. Look at the prominent display of relevant EconLib.org/library sources, plopped right on top of the page with the Category:Tagged_pages_containing_blacklisted_links. For that particular economist, Jevons, EconLib is one of the more accessible (comprehensive, no paywall) sources available, but we aren't allowed to reference it because of the obsessive spamming of the site by one (or a few?) editors.-- FeralOink ( talk) 12:36, 23 October 2017 (UTC)
Vidme is a growing video platform that many are seeing as a YouTube alternative. In recent years, many creators decide to jump ship to this site after the so-called "Adpocalypse". I'm trying to create an article, but, apparently, the link is blockbed. JWthaMajestic ( talk) 19:59, 7 May 2017 (UTC)
Editor is trying to circumvent blacklist by adding search-engine results. Trying to block some of these:
\b(google
\b(google
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:06, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Junk Indian blog site being added by IP addresses to multiple articles for a while - see
[5] in December 2016 and
this lovely masterpiece from today. Listed two IP's but it's been spammed by more.
Ravensfire (
talk)
14:25, 5 May 2017 (UTC)
Frequently added unreliable source.
Burning Pillar (
talk)
15:07, 3 May 2017 (UTC)
I attempted to link to an article on the page but apparently the site is blocked although it is near the top of the results for searches in the subject on Bing. Phillip.13 ( talk) 04:33, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
let's hat this totally derailed discussion. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:02, 11 May 2017 (UTC) |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Actually both panendeism.org and panendeism.webs.com, which are the same group. Spamming of website created to promote WP:NEOLOGISM on multiple wikis. Wikipedia: [6], [7]. Wikiquote: [8]. Wiktionary: [9], [10]. Wikiquote deletion proposal brought out a pack of sock/meatpuppets, so dealing with a single user won't do it. Hyperbolick ( talk) 17:25, 11 May 2017 (UTC)
Spam for personal blog, 2 final warnings (the first immediate one was a bit harsh imo, so I added a second notice to explain the problem in more detail). Both warnings have been ignored. GermanJoe ( talk) 15:54, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
This domain name infosecinstitute.com seems to be a reputable U.S. based organization, doing IT and information security training. Read more on
that Wikipedia article. Also that domain name was repeatedly used as a source by well known notable mass medias, including Bloomberg News, Washington Post, Better Business Bureau (BBB), POLITICO, VICE News. Sources are in
that Wikipedia article. But that domain name is listed on the wikipedia blacklist under \binfosecinstitute\.com\b
Wikipedia article. But as of May 14, 2017 there are
no log supporting why it was added. Maybe a typography, maybe a mistake, maybe an electronic glitch? I vote to remove infosecinstitute.com from the blacklist.
Steps to reproduce error:
Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.
Francewhoa ( talk) 23:33, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
Collecting here from socks.
-- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
Being creative. Already blacklisted. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:48, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.*NEETnews.*
related spam. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.*mbbs.*donation.*
.*donation.*mbbs.*
Another one. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:12, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
mdms
mbbs
May give some false positives, but this will not have this much extra use. These terms are nice for XLinkBot as such. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 16:40, 15 May 2017 (UTC)
.*NEETMEDICALADMISSION.*
Another term. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
tulamba.cf: 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
An IP and a new editor are trying repeatedly to add this site as an "official" Web site to the article at Tulamba, when it is clearly a personal Web site under development. General Ization Talk 14:50, 17 May 2017 (UTC)
Various websites being spammed with exam results (really links to the official site), been removing these as I see them but enough articles were hit today that it's time to just block them. Generally from IP addresses but sometimes from one-shot new users. See recent history of SSLC, Haryana Board of School Education and Kerala State Education Board for some examples. Ravensfire ( talk) 01:54, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
This
edit request to
MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Plz remove line \bimhabib\.com\b from this list. actually some months before I was editing some stuff then Wikipedia block this site plz unblock I hate spamming next time I will take care of this thanks Tkabadsha ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
Plz remove line \bimhabib\.com\b from this list. actually some months before I was editing some stuff then Wikipedia block this site plz unblock I hate spamming next time I will take care of this thanks Tkabadsha ( talk) 10:13, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
I'm wondering why opposingviews.com is banned? It is cited in Cockfight#India but without the url unfortunately. I can't see any reason to exclude this website eg Wikipedia_WikiProject Spam_LinkReports_opposingviews.com tells me nothing obvious. Over to youse... DadaNeem ( talk) 09:44, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
spammed by
Promotional review site conveniently linking to Amazon shop offers. No author info, no credentials, no foreseeable encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe ( talk) 06:43, 31 May 2017 (UTC)
Site appears to host videos for download in violation of copyrights. Site appears to contain malware. -- Ronz ( talk) 17:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)