This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Spam links which to not pass w:WP:MEDRS and w:WP:MEDASSESS relentlessly added to articles about masturbation and pornography over the years. The matter has been debated at w:WP:RSN. They may seem to violate w:WP:SOAP. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of being spammed, Declined. MER-C 06:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhe ( talk • contribs)
Infrequent but repeated spamming on various clock related articles. Sometimes replacing dead links with this spam site. Reverted by various users and warned on user talk page, on which not responsive. Suggest adding to blacklist. - DVdm ( talk) 12:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rakesh biswas01, we have a person who is repeatedly creating socks to re-create articles related to Rakesh Biswas. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
fullsongs24.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
Starahad ( 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)
The user has added the links to two different articles so it's not spamming yet, but between the copyright vio, the site not having any value to Wikipedia and a gut feeling this will just continue, I'd prefer to nip this in the bud. Ravensfire ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
All users added external links to the site in the See Also or External Links area on the page. FirstDrop87 ( talk) 02:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All edits by the above users promote indiaproperty.com as citation spam or promote Indiaproperty or its founder or sister concerns.
These accounts might be dupes of blocked user, Realestatewalas ( 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).
Anithakrish15 ( 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) and RealtyCompass might be related to the same SEO campaign/mob as there's some cross-linking. Edits and editors related to Metroplots look related too.
A Google of Lakshmin's name (based on his message to me) shows that he is employed by Indiaproperty in a marketing/SEO role. Furthermore, he was previous employed in a similarly capacity at a company named Comodo and he has edited its pages as well. (I'm not sure if it is kosher to link to personal information.) There is an obvious conflict of interest here and a lack of notability to these companies as well. Their pages, IMO, should not be part of an encyclopaedia.
- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Commercial website selling DVDs, repeatedly added to the Airbrush article and related articles since 2011. 79.69.202.97 ( talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Repeated addition of the site's pages in place of association football club team official websites. Anon has been blocked once for the action but has returned and continues. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Travel agency site being repeatedly spammed by numerous IPs to Palace on Wheels. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Rarely used link, but keeps being used in BLP articles such as Techno Viking, Jameis Winston and other articles, by vandals and good faith editors. Already on XLinkBot list, but good faith edits keep slipping through.-- Otterathome ( talk) 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The spam blacklist is not a means for settling content disputes. Rejected. MER-C 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
footycards.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 Spammers
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Deres ( talk • contribs)
Repeated spamming to many articles. I've blocked the registered user and the IPs, including range blocks, but the spammer is just IP hopping. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Linkspamming from multiple IPs into multiple articles. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It was removed from the article in question. There was a discussion in the talk page also. On a search, links from this domain which translates even personal blogs are used as inline citations in many articles. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 07:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Have noticed these affiliate-blog links sneaking in as fake references on tenuously-related articles, replacing existing references and just overwriting official links in the past couple of weeks. They're all the same page layout so are presumably connected, and will never be of any use to the project. May be worth adding a what-to-get-blank-for-christmas regexp to the blacklist. -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
what-?to-?get-?.+christmas.com
. --
McGeddon (
talk)
17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing cross-wiki additions:
MER-C whereadded bestpressurewasherrating.com COIBot 29 records; Wikis where bestpressurewasherrating.com has been added: w:en (21), w:de (4), w:da (2), w:fr (1), w:ru (1). MER-C whereadded what-to-buy-your-boy-friend-for-christmas.com COIBot 3 records; Wikis where what-to-buy-your-boy-friend-for-christmas.com has been added: w:vi (2), w:en (1). MER-C whereadded what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com COIBot 12 records; Wikis where what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com has been added: w:en (11), w:vi (1). MER-C whereadded topsnowblower.net COIBot 14 records; Wikis where topsnowblower.net has been added: w:en (13), w:ru (1). MER-C whereadded bestweedeaterreviews.com COIBot 13 records; Wikis where bestweedeaterreviews.com has been added: w:vi (7), w:en (6).
Defer to Global blacklist. MER-C 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
infodriveindia.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
Could this link please be removed from the blacklist? This website has trade data relating to India, and I would like to reference it in articles that mention multilateral trade involving India. I have not found any alternative online sources for this data via Google Search. The link used to be spammed in the external links section of articles until it was blacklisted in 2007. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2007#Infodriveindia.com (removal). I think that the possibility of re-listing on the blacklist is a sufficient disincentive to further spamming. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a very informative and useful website on the culture of the Kathmandu Valley and I request that it be removed from the black list. I see no possible reason why it has been black listed. Karrattul ( talk) 17:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
How can the site be useful
I cannot find any other sources online which quote some of the historical sources that this website does. The website is as vital as
Template:Hadith-usc, which is linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website
here.
I cant find in the archives here why it was blacklisted. Possibly because it might be considered extremist literature, because it contains: hadith, quran and tafsir. And someone may have thought these historical text promote extremism and violence. If that was the reason it was blacklisted then that is like saying "block websites that link to the bible because it contains violence".
Also
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/altafsir.com explains nothing about why this was blacklsited--
Misconceptions2 (
talk)
12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Why it should not be blacklisted
It does not contain spam or any kind of malware. I beleive it was a huge mistake to blacklist this.
This website contains mainly Islamic primary sources known as Tafsir, so just like there is a Template:Hadith-usc linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website, this website is same as the USC webcites which has records of islamic primary sources called hadith. altafsir.com has records of islamic primary sources call tafsir. I am proposing this be whitelisted for same reason as why links from Template:Hadith-usc that go to University of South Carolina's database of islamic primary sources is whitelisted.
How can the site be useful This is a harmless tongue-in-cheek redirect to Google.
Why it should not be blacklisted It does not contain spam or any kind of malware, in other words - there is no reason for it to be blacklisted. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
An attempt to save http://petition.com/example only gives me the message:
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
It appears
MediaWiki:Spamprotectionmatch doesn't get the full url in $1. Maybe it has something to do with the petition entry not having a domain:
\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b
{{int:Spamprotectionmatch|petition}}
produces the message I got:
The following link has triggered a protection filter: petition
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
Solutions:
{{int:Spamprotectionmatch|http://petition.com/example}}
produces what I expected to get: A message with "The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://petition.com/example". I can see it in preview but not save it without nowiki, because the produced interface message contains the blacklisted link.
My tests were based on a report at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#I can't figure out what link is blacklisted? PrimeHunter ( talk) 20:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, delisting is Declined per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it). MER-C 09:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This blog have really helpful information of IT and have some helpful list of website and tools. I was adding reference of project management tool comparison article of their blog and found that its blacklisted. Here I can find hqtips log of spam discussed in April 2013
How can the site be useful
This blog have informative and helpful written article that usually required by user to find their solutions for IT
Why it should not be blacklisted This website doesn't look spammy and have unique articles that could be required by any contributor to add it to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevpet ( talk • contribs)
infosecinstitute.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
Not sure why this was blacklisted at all? The portal seems to publish quite a lot of information security related articles and doesn't seem to be a spam puppet on the first look. Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a stupid entry at first glance. It blocks any and all domains that include the word "petition". I am more interested in who added the entry and why. Why is a plain English word in a URL blocklist? Int21h ( talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
petitions.whitehouse.gov: 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
Apparently "petitions" is a blacklisted word. The only previous discussion that I could find was on that occurred a more than four years ago here. There was a small consensus to blacklist thepetitionsite.com, but none that I could find to blacklist all URLs containing the string "petition".
petitions.whitehouse.gov is part of the official website of the White House. It is platform for citizens to raise issues with the US Presidential administration. As a primary source, it provides verifiability and additional contextual detail for readers. I would generally be opposed to including such links as an external link, but this one has encyclopedic value as a URL within a citation template.- Mr X 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Also noting that there does not seem to be any evidence or prior discussions that petitions.whitehouse.gov ever met "the bar for blacklisting [which] is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable." I'm not aware of any discussion where there was consensus reached for preemptively blacklisting all URLs containing the string "petition".- Mr X 15:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Petition sites simply fail our inclusion standards - when they are open, they are abused (also the official ones, and maybe especially the official ones - generally the abuse is on a one-by-one-scale to get attention for a specific petition). That there is a petition open is not a notable fact (except if someone else wrote about it, and that is than the reliable source that you need, not the link itself).
When the petition finished, the petition is a reliable source for is the outcome (the number) and maybe for the fact that the president himself signed the petition (note, it is a primary source for that). However, if those facts are notable, then they are again covered by someone else (but if it is really needed, the specific cases can be whitelisted).
In short, petition sites are regularly abused and are hence blacklisted (I would argue that also other petition sites should be blanketed ..). For the few specific cases where one can show that the link is needed, there is the whitelist. Delisting Declined, Defer to Whitelist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is. WP:ELNO #4 says petition sites should be avoided. The whitelist is available if for some reason such a link is appropriate. Chillum 04:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry:: An argument was made on AN/I for the link 'petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses' - that is not part of this request nor mentioned earlier on AN/I, and completely in line with all responses here: Defer to Whitelist (though I will process that as part of this request). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the website in question, seems to have been blacklisted as to the message coming up when using the link in an edit. I am unsure as to why this is? I have scrolled through wikipedia's blacklisted sites and I think that the domain name is triggering this from a blacklisted site; bitconnexion.com If this is the case can we please have this rectified?? ContentKing01 ( talk) 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
hubpages.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
This appears to be a blogging site used by thousands of users, but the entire site has been blocked thanks to a single page that is not even there anymore. I have been attempting to add an article that appeared in The Guardian as a source, the article is on hubpages.com as part of the author's blog that reproduces examples of his work. Please remove hubpages from the blocked list. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've hit a wall editing the
Icon Complex, and fear I can't get much more done without a solution to this problem. Here is an example:
If you search for 171011_Supporting_Info.pdf on Google (bing doesn't find this file), one of the results will lead you straight to the motherload of information for said article, at the
Hobart City Council website (I would just look there but find this site very hard to navigate). Unfortunately, Wikipedia wont let me cite these sources as they go thru some funky Google redirecting process (I think?). Can someone please tell me a way to find the original link? The search result I have (and cant cite) is http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hobartcity.com.au%2Ffiles%2F06ef439a-450b-48dd-b33d-9f7b00f2017e%2F171011_Supporting_Info.pdf&ei=K9sBU5uDLsijkAX0zID4DA&usg=AFQjCNGy8xhtzY6MEgNPCjB8QQtbE7qQ8w&bvm=bv.61535280,d.dGI
There must be a way to bypass Google and cite the source?
Wiki
ian
10:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
that link doesnt work for example-- Crossswords ( talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-not true, i am allowed to post it in talk pages, but i am not allowed to edit things by using their url site as a source-- Crossswords ( talk) 03:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Closed as no action. MER-C 10:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
When Cyberbot II started operating on Wikipedia, we had around 5000 articles containing blacklisted links. Now we have roughly half that amount. I think the effects of Cyberbot II's work are showing.— cyberpower ChatOnline 13:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the blacklist have the ability to block a specific file. An author is promoting his paper, hosted at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2014.930034 all over Wikipedia in anything that is even slightly related to calendars, and uses constantly changing IP addresses to do so. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems just one IP on one day - I would just impose a block if they continue. Then if they start moving to other IPs .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why power-technology.com is on the blacklist? A bot recently tagged Hazelwood Power Station. The link is arguably not in the best point in the article, but is this a mirror site or something? The link has been there since 2009. Yaris678 ( talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Due to issues with determining the content of parsed pages ahead of time (see bugzilla:15582 for some examples), the way the spam blacklist works should probably be changed. Per bugzilla:16326, I plan to submit a patch for the spam blacklist extension that causes it to either delink or remove blacklisted links upon parsing, or replace them with a link to a special page explaining the blacklisting. This could be done either in addition to or instead of the current functionality. Are there any comments or suggestions on such a new implementation? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I know the policy on short urls. Once again, it gets in the way. http://archive.is/SSm7 is a short code for the webarchive. How much more of a legitimate use can we find. The do not provide the longer code to reach this. So how do we get here? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Note, that this is due to be blacklisted per outcome of an RfC; it is just awaiting removal of the plethora of links - an editfilter is in place to avoid additions with specific explanation. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Please examine the on again off again on again off again actions of the bot to determine whether this is reasonable or whether something is astray. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Spam links which to not pass w:WP:MEDRS and w:WP:MEDASSESS relentlessly added to articles about masturbation and pornography over the years. The matter has been debated at w:WP:RSN. They may seem to violate w:WP:SOAP. Tgeorgescu ( talk) 00:20, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
No evidence of being spammed, Declined. MER-C 06:50, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhe ( talk • contribs)
Infrequent but repeated spamming on various clock related articles. Sometimes replacing dead links with this spam site. Reverted by various users and warned on user talk page, on which not responsive. Suggest adding to blacklist. - DVdm ( talk) 12:01, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Rakesh biswas01, we have a person who is repeatedly creating socks to re-create articles related to Rakesh Biswas. Tokyogirl79 (。◕‿◕。) 04:03, 10 September 2014 (UTC)
fullsongs24.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
Starahad ( 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)
The user has added the links to two different articles so it's not spamming yet, but between the copyright vio, the site not having any value to Wikipedia and a gut feeling this will just continue, I'd prefer to nip this in the bud. Ravensfire ( talk) 22:01, 30 June 2014 (UTC)
All users added external links to the site in the See Also or External Links area on the page. FirstDrop87 ( talk) 02:29, 21 July 2014 (UTC)
All edits by the above users promote indiaproperty.com as citation spam or promote Indiaproperty or its founder or sister concerns.
These accounts might be dupes of blocked user, Realestatewalas ( 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).
Anithakrish15 ( 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) and RealtyCompass might be related to the same SEO campaign/mob as there's some cross-linking. Edits and editors related to Metroplots look related too.
A Google of Lakshmin's name (based on his message to me) shows that he is employed by Indiaproperty in a marketing/SEO role. Furthermore, he was previous employed in a similarly capacity at a company named Comodo and he has edited its pages as well. (I'm not sure if it is kosher to link to personal information.) There is an obvious conflict of interest here and a lack of notability to these companies as well. Their pages, IMO, should not be part of an encyclopaedia.
- Cpt.a.haddock ( talk) 19:49, 13 September 2014 (UTC)
Commercial website selling DVDs, repeatedly added to the Airbrush article and related articles since 2011. 79.69.202.97 ( talk) 14:53, 14 September 2014 (UTC)
Repeated addition of the site's pages in place of association football club team official websites. Anon has been blocked once for the action but has returned and continues. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 14:10, 8 September 2014 (UTC)
Travel agency site being repeatedly spammed by numerous IPs to Palace on Wheels. -- David Biddulph ( talk) 11:09, 21 September 2014 (UTC)
Rarely used link, but keeps being used in BLP articles such as Techno Viking, Jameis Winston and other articles, by vandals and good faith editors. Already on XLinkBot list, but good faith edits keep slipping through.-- Otterathome ( talk) 19:43, 24 September 2014 (UTC)
The spam blacklist is not a means for settling content disputes. Rejected. MER-C 03:54, 28 September 2014 (UTC)
footycards.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 Spammers
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matt Deres ( talk • contribs)
Repeated spamming to many articles. I've blocked the registered user and the IPs, including range blocks, but the spammer is just IP hopping. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 19:47, 24 August 2014 (UTC)
Linkspamming from multiple IPs into multiple articles. duffbeerforme ( talk) 13:17, 11 September 2014 (UTC)
It was removed from the article in question. There was a discussion in the talk page also. On a search, links from this domain which translates even personal blogs are used as inline citations in many articles. -- Drajay1976 ( talk) 07:30, 1 October 2014 (UTC)
Have noticed these affiliate-blog links sneaking in as fake references on tenuously-related articles, replacing existing references and just overwriting official links in the past couple of weeks. They're all the same page layout so are presumably connected, and will never be of any use to the project. May be worth adding a what-to-get-blank-for-christmas regexp to the blacklist. -- McGeddon ( talk) 12:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
what-?to-?get-?.+christmas.com
. --
McGeddon (
talk)
17:17, 24 October 2014 (UTC)
I'm seeing cross-wiki additions:
MER-C whereadded bestpressurewasherrating.com COIBot 29 records; Wikis where bestpressurewasherrating.com has been added: w:en (21), w:de (4), w:da (2), w:fr (1), w:ru (1). MER-C whereadded what-to-buy-your-boy-friend-for-christmas.com COIBot 3 records; Wikis where what-to-buy-your-boy-friend-for-christmas.com has been added: w:vi (2), w:en (1). MER-C whereadded what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com COIBot 12 records; Wikis where what-to-get-my-boyfriend-for-christmas.com has been added: w:en (11), w:vi (1). MER-C whereadded topsnowblower.net COIBot 14 records; Wikis where topsnowblower.net has been added: w:en (13), w:ru (1). MER-C whereadded bestweedeaterreviews.com COIBot 13 records; Wikis where bestweedeaterreviews.com has been added: w:vi (7), w:en (6).
Defer to Global blacklist. MER-C 03:39, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
infodriveindia.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
Could this link please be removed from the blacklist? This website has trade data relating to India, and I would like to reference it in articles that mention multilateral trade involving India. I have not found any alternative online sources for this data via Google Search. The link used to be spammed in the external links section of articles until it was blacklisted in 2007. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2007#Infodriveindia.com (removal). I think that the possibility of re-listing on the blacklist is a sufficient disincentive to further spamming. -- Joshua Issac ( talk) 13:04, 31 March 2014 (UTC)
This is a very informative and useful website on the culture of the Kathmandu Valley and I request that it be removed from the black list. I see no possible reason why it has been black listed. Karrattul ( talk) 17:41, 22 July 2014 (UTC)
How can the site be useful
I cannot find any other sources online which quote some of the historical sources that this website does. The website is as vital as
Template:Hadith-usc, which is linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website
here.
I cant find in the archives here why it was blacklisted. Possibly because it might be considered extremist literature, because it contains: hadith, quran and tafsir. And someone may have thought these historical text promote extremism and violence. If that was the reason it was blacklisted then that is like saying "block websites that link to the bible because it contains violence".
Also
Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/altafsir.com explains nothing about why this was blacklsited--
Misconceptions2 (
talk)
12:21, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
Why it should not be blacklisted
It does not contain spam or any kind of malware. I beleive it was a huge mistake to blacklist this.
This website contains mainly Islamic primary sources known as Tafsir, so just like there is a Template:Hadith-usc linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website, this website is same as the USC webcites which has records of islamic primary sources called hadith. altafsir.com has records of islamic primary sources call tafsir. I am proposing this be whitelisted for same reason as why links from Template:Hadith-usc that go to University of South Carolina's database of islamic primary sources is whitelisted.
How can the site be useful This is a harmless tongue-in-cheek redirect to Google.
Why it should not be blacklisted It does not contain spam or any kind of malware, in other words - there is no reason for it to be blacklisted. Chunk5Darth ( talk) 19:10, 3 October 2014 (UTC)
An attempt to save http://petition.com/example only gives me the message:
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
It appears
MediaWiki:Spamprotectionmatch doesn't get the full url in $1. Maybe it has something to do with the petition entry not having a domain:
\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b
{{int:Spamprotectionmatch|petition}}
produces the message I got:
The following link has triggered a protection filter: petition
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.
Solutions:
{{int:Spamprotectionmatch|http://petition.com/example}}
produces what I expected to get: A message with "The following link has triggered a protection filter: http://petition.com/example". I can see it in preview but not save it without nowiki, because the produced interface message contains the blacklisted link.
My tests were based on a report at Wikipedia:Teahouse/Questions#I can't figure out what link is blacklisted? PrimeHunter ( talk) 20:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
For the record, delisting is Declined per Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive853#Please remove petitions.whitehouse.gov from the spam blacklist (or whitelist it). MER-C 09:14, 16 September 2014 (UTC)
This blog have really helpful information of IT and have some helpful list of website and tools. I was adding reference of project management tool comparison article of their blog and found that its blacklisted. Here I can find hqtips log of spam discussed in April 2013
How can the site be useful
This blog have informative and helpful written article that usually required by user to find their solutions for IT
Why it should not be blacklisted This website doesn't look spammy and have unique articles that could be required by any contributor to add it to wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stevpet ( talk • contribs)
infosecinstitute.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
Not sure why this was blacklisted at all? The portal seems to publish quite a lot of information security related articles and doesn't seem to be a spam puppet on the first look. Pawel Krawczyk ( talk) 10:06, 23 July 2014 (UTC)
This seems like a stupid entry at first glance. It blocks any and all domains that include the word "petition". I am more interested in who added the entry and why. Why is a plain English word in a URL blocklist? Int21h ( talk) 07:50, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
petitions.whitehouse.gov: 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
Apparently "petitions" is a blacklisted word. The only previous discussion that I could find was on that occurred a more than four years ago here. There was a small consensus to blacklist thepetitionsite.com, but none that I could find to blacklist all URLs containing the string "petition".
petitions.whitehouse.gov is part of the official website of the White House. It is platform for citizens to raise issues with the US Presidential administration. As a primary source, it provides verifiability and additional contextual detail for readers. I would generally be opposed to including such links as an external link, but this one has encyclopedic value as a URL within a citation template.- Mr X 15:24, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Also noting that there does not seem to be any evidence or prior discussions that petitions.whitehouse.gov ever met "the bar for blacklisting [which] is whether a site was spammed to Wikipedia, or otherwise abused, not whether the content of the site is 'spammy' or unreliable." I'm not aware of any discussion where there was consensus reached for preemptively blacklisting all URLs containing the string "petition".- Mr X 15:44, 1 September 2014 (UTC)
Petition sites simply fail our inclusion standards - when they are open, they are abused (also the official ones, and maybe especially the official ones - generally the abuse is on a one-by-one-scale to get attention for a specific petition). That there is a petition open is not a notable fact (except if someone else wrote about it, and that is than the reliable source that you need, not the link itself).
When the petition finished, the petition is a reliable source for is the outcome (the number) and maybe for the fact that the president himself signed the petition (note, it is a primary source for that). However, if those facts are notable, then they are again covered by someone else (but if it is really needed, the specific cases can be whitelisted).
In short, petition sites are regularly abused and are hence blacklisted (I would argue that also other petition sites should be blanketed ..). For the few specific cases where one can show that the link is needed, there is the whitelist. Delisting Declined, Defer to Whitelist. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:26, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
I don't see what the issue is. WP:ELNO #4 says petition sites should be avoided. The whitelist is available if for some reason such a link is appropriate. Chillum 04:04, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
@ Bluerasberry:: An argument was made on AN/I for the link 'petitions.whitehouse.gov/responses' - that is not part of this request nor mentioned earlier on AN/I, and completely in line with all responses here: Defer to Whitelist (though I will process that as part of this request). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 04:49, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
It seems that the website in question, seems to have been blacklisted as to the message coming up when using the link in an edit. I am unsure as to why this is? I have scrolled through wikipedia's blacklisted sites and I think that the domain name is triggering this from a blacklisted site; bitconnexion.com If this is the case can we please have this rectified?? ContentKing01 ( talk) 07:07, 5 September 2014 (UTC)
hubpages.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
This appears to be a blogging site used by thousands of users, but the entire site has been blocked thanks to a single page that is not even there anymore. I have been attempting to add an article that appeared in The Guardian as a source, the article is on hubpages.com as part of the author's blog that reproduces examples of his work. Please remove hubpages from the blocked list. Tiptoethrutheminefield ( talk) 21:21, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
I've hit a wall editing the
Icon Complex, and fear I can't get much more done without a solution to this problem. Here is an example:
If you search for 171011_Supporting_Info.pdf on Google (bing doesn't find this file), one of the results will lead you straight to the motherload of information for said article, at the
Hobart City Council website (I would just look there but find this site very hard to navigate). Unfortunately, Wikipedia wont let me cite these sources as they go thru some funky Google redirecting process (I think?). Can someone please tell me a way to find the original link? The search result I have (and cant cite) is http://www.google.com.au/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&ved=0CCgQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hobartcity.com.au%2Ffiles%2F06ef439a-450b-48dd-b33d-9f7b00f2017e%2F171011_Supporting_Info.pdf&ei=K9sBU5uDLsijkAX0zID4DA&usg=AFQjCNGy8xhtzY6MEgNPCjB8QQtbE7qQ8w&bvm=bv.61535280,d.dGI
There must be a way to bypass Google and cite the source?
Wiki
ian
10:19, 17 February 2014 (UTC)
that link doesnt work for example-- Crossswords ( talk) 00:03, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
-not true, i am allowed to post it in talk pages, but i am not allowed to edit things by using their url site as a source-- Crossswords ( talk) 03:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
Closed as no action. MER-C 10:13, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
When Cyberbot II started operating on Wikipedia, we had around 5000 articles containing blacklisted links. Now we have roughly half that amount. I think the effects of Cyberbot II's work are showing.— cyberpower ChatOnline 13:18, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Does the blacklist have the ability to block a specific file. An author is promoting his paper, hosted at http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/02757206.2014.930034 all over Wikipedia in anything that is even slightly related to calendars, and uses constantly changing IP addresses to do so. Jc3s5h ( talk) 17:08, 24 June 2014 (UTC)
It seems just one IP on one day - I would just impose a block if they continue. Then if they start moving to other IPs .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:43, 25 June 2014 (UTC)
Does anyone know why power-technology.com is on the blacklist? A bot recently tagged Hazelwood Power Station. The link is arguably not in the best point in the article, but is this a mirror site or something? The link has been there since 2009. Yaris678 ( talk) 12:33, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Due to issues with determining the content of parsed pages ahead of time (see bugzilla:15582 for some examples), the way the spam blacklist works should probably be changed. Per bugzilla:16326, I plan to submit a patch for the spam blacklist extension that causes it to either delink or remove blacklisted links upon parsing, or replace them with a link to a special page explaining the blacklisting. This could be done either in addition to or instead of the current functionality. Are there any comments or suggestions on such a new implementation? Jackmcbarn ( talk) 20:46, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
I know the policy on short urls. Once again, it gets in the way. http://archive.is/SSm7 is a short code for the webarchive. How much more of a legitimate use can we find. The do not provide the longer code to reach this. So how do we get here? Trackinfo ( talk) 00:14, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Note, that this is due to be blacklisted per outcome of an RfC; it is just awaiting removal of the plethora of links - an editfilter is in place to avoid additions with specific explanation. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Please examine the on again off again on again off again actions of the bot to determine whether this is reasonable or whether something is astray. Fiddle Faddle 10:07, 21 September 2014 (UTC)