Would it be possible if esybuy.com was added to the list of prohibited spam URLs? A number of users (different IPs) keep adding the URL to Taobao; note how they've piped it so that it appears as [(http)esybuy.com/taobao_english.asp www.china.org.cn/english/business/239421.htm], which seems to be an attempt to fool people who click the link, anticipating a reference. Diffs: [1] [2] [3] -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Frequently spammed blog - MrOllie ( talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. In fact it is quite clear that MrOllie has added the website here without informing me about this following an editing dispute where he deleted a link to the site made by someone else, which I find sneaky and underhand. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. -- Youngpossum ( talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think blacklisting this magazine is an excessive response to the problem of its enthusiasts being ignorant of Wikipedia policy, and more interested in adding what they consider useful information on a topic they know about than they are in becoming general editors here. There is no way this respectable source of hard-to-find information about respected literary figures deserves to be blacklisted as if it were a trivial fansite or somebody's blog larded with adlinks. I have no connection with the magazine and my interest is in making Wikipedia better. If Wikipedia is only to be edited by oldbies who have a wide range of interests and contribute to lots of different articles, while anybody with a special interest or knowledge who comes here to add something he knows and cares about should be sharply rapped on the knuckles as a SPA, then Wikipedia will be impoverished. Questionic ( talk) Here are 3 links from the contributions of the alleged spammers above. I find it easier to understand why people were eager to add them to the relevant articles than to understand why people interested in these authors should be deprived of a chance to read more about them in the LIterateur:
Unfortunately, this edit will not be posted if I link to the articles that should surely be considered as part of the evidence. So, for "redactedbythisblacklist" you will have to type in "www.literateur.com" Questionic ( talk) 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have also been looking at the actual contribution histories of the accounts described above as "Spammers". For example, the very first one 131.111.141.97 ( 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) is clearly an occasional editor of Wikipedia articles about literary figures. One link on Jan 25, reverted Apr 1. 2 edits to TS Eliot in March. 3 informative edits to Will Self and 2 to Hanif Kereishi on Apr 14 based on material in the Literateur, all reverted. It seems to me circular reasoning to declare that all links to literateur.com are promotional spam so anybody who wants to use information from it must therefore be a spammer. Here is another from the list of "spammers" 79.68.196.107 ( 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), who on April 2 made 2 constructive edits to Stanley Wells, one adding a new publication and the other linking to Wells' interview at Literateur.com. In my opinion, such editing is not somebody spamming for Literateur, it is somebody adding information about Stanley Wells.
There has also been ongoing discussion at Talk:James_S._Shapiro#literateur, where several different editors have urged the inclusion of a link to the Literateur interview. I do not see why non-spammer editors who think a source is useful should be blocked from using it just because "spammers" linked to it in the past. Questionic ( talk) 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that. No, Questionic. The problem is worse. And those are reverts, not separate insertions. They did not use the site without having seen the edit before, they did not come with the resource themselves, they did not pick it up somewhere else and found a separate addition. I said, I have been around spamming a long time. If I say it is a case of WP:DUCK, then expect that I did my research, as I expect that Mr. Ollie and A. B. did. The IPs are in two closely related geographical areas (not just all over the world, so that they are completely independent editors). But see diff vs. diff. Two completely different IPs, being 2 months apart, doing edits which are adding the same content with just slightly different wording, then we have diff by a third IP range, clearly pushing the insert. Then another IP just adds it as an external link in diff, and diff by YoungPossum (almost two weeks later, this is the only mainspace edit in over 2 weeks .. how did they know that the link here was deleted (OK, maybe looking at Mr. Ollies edits, still it is searching)?) to show they are all really related. Oh wait, in between, this IP identifies himself as YoungPossum, which is clearly in the ranges that we are discussing here (note the "You're not actually listening to me are you? I have stopped. You just insist on deleting any link to The Literateur made by people other than me!." by 88.224.220.88, and the reversions of removals by 'other' adders by Special:Contributions/88.224.220.88). By the way, this recent set of edits is by another range. Now, the 88-range is in a different country, but still by an editor who says he is involved in Literateur (YoungPossum). The others are all close, geographically and in type of edits, and clearly spamming. But then we go on. See here, on the 16th of March, where YoungPossum notices that the poem is with a dash inbetween .. strikingly, on the very same day, 'someone else' had repaired that on a completely other article .. I've been along spammers a long time, I do not believe in coincidence. But well. We always have diff and diff, or diff and diff, or even aggresively do this. All unrelated, you say, and still in good faith?? The info was contested, maybe for the wrong reason, but pushing it does not help, discussing - something that they knew how to do - would have been the way forward, not defending other spammers, and saying you yourself are not doing anything wrong. Maybe it was not YoungPossum doing all the insertions, the other editors (which do seem clearly involved as well!) did on themselves already do enough harm to make it suitable for blacklisting. This is a campaign, and I think YoungPossums defence should be here. Feel like filing an WP:SPI to see whether these groups of editors are really independent, or whether this is really a spam campaign? I am sorry that I had now to post all this here, I think this does not shed a good light on the people who have added the link .. Law_of_Unintended_Consequences. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The spamming just goes on and on. The spammer now uses a new IP address every time, so blocking the user would not help, and it is also not a case for the sockpuppet investigations. So please add leawo.com to the blacklist.— J. M. ( talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
pickegg.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
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
decorationpoint.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
Continual spamming by IPs at Cuckoo clock, Beer stein, Weather house; here are a few examples:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhe ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 September 2010
These socks have been attempting to add this link as per here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Junepar65/Archive Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
vardh.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.vardh.com
Site consists primarily of advertising—more than 80% on most pages. Non-advertisement content is of poor quality (aggregation of un-cited quotations) or readily available elsewhere (public domain literature). I have reverted links from multiple articles here and at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Aug 1#Leimo Laser comb. MER-C 06:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Related domains:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing abuse for over a year by SPA accounts, continuing again today despite multiple warnings and discussions with other editors. At this point, enough is enough - the site has no encyclopedic value and the demonstrated ongoing abuse of promoting the site on Wikipedia demonstrates a persistent individual who does not wish to abide by site content policies. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
OoCities is a web archive, which is a helpful source to turn dead geocities links into working ones It was considered spam because oocities is ad-financed and there are alternatives (archive.org and webcitation.org) But it is stil helpful because many sites are only to be found there.
Yet, fortunately OoCities reacted and stated on their FAQ: "As of Sebtember 13. OoCities is free of ads for all visitors who are directed to us by Wikipedia to meet consensus with Wikipedia's regulations and the ad free nature of Wikipedia. Please send any further questions,feedback or suggestions to oocities[at]gmail[dot]com"
OoCities should be removed from the WP blacklist as the reason to put it here is no more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.5.172 ( talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Oocities.com is a commercial website that benefits from Wikipedia traffic whether or not they show our readers their ads. There are many places besides oocities.com with archived material from Geocities.com. The thousands of spamlinks to oocities.com introduced just a month or so ago included many ad-filled pages saying they did not have the material at oocities but a clickthrough to archive.org might find it. Questionic ( talk) 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Remove from Blacklist:: The OoCities Archive itself gave no reason to distrust it. it stated to disable ads for the first time on 13 September The page clearly indentifies itself as a non commercial community driven effort which needs some ads to pay their hosting but (without any proven doubt) willing not to show ads to Wikipedia visitors There is no more reason not to make use of its service as much as for other archives as archive.org, webcitation.org, reocities.com, geocities.ws which are constantly used to update geocities.com links. Oocities.com is yet the most complete one archive. http://www.google.de/search?q=site%3Aoocities.com+oocities.com [8.8 Million results] Especially for those pages which are to be find at OoCities only people will need to use their Links. -- 79.198.4.205 ( talk) 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yet all appointments against the OoCities archive are based on the same preconceived impression by advertisments which were shown in the past. Since the archive clearly decided to remove thos advertisments permanently these reason is gone. Please make some uninvolved persons look up the issue instead of posting the same complaint several times. Please make your own Impressions to see if the Archive itself acts liable and permantly and sticks to its terms. Please give your vote not before you are able to make it up applying more to the present state than to the past one. — 79.198.4.205 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
Keep on blacklist as the strong motivation of someone(s) to increase traffic to Oocities from Wikipedia created hours of extra work for editors in the past and could easily do so again if the ban is lifted. If there are individual pages in oocities that cannot be found elsewhere, Wikipedia has a "whitelisting" option available. Questionic ( talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, Encyclopedia Mythica was recently blacklisted. The premise of the argument for blacklisting was that the site contains gross misinformation, and pantheon.org/articles/e/eisa.html is cited as containing "total nonsense". As a result of the discussion, a bot was configured to purge references to the cite from our articles, and at least three AfDs were initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perendi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prende, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbti.
Now, I am certainly not an expert in this area, but there does not appear to be any objective evidence to support any of these actions. The content of Encyclopedia Mythica's article on Eisa is echoed by a fair number of books, one dating back as far as 1895. The nominator did mention that we once propagated deliberate falsehoods from the site, but no verifiable examples of such were cited. Unless empirical information to support these actions can be found, I move that we delist the site and attempt damage control of related bot activity. — C M B J 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read these discussions, and I think the answer is simple: Defer to Whitelist. If you have specific links, from which specific information can be used following our policies and guidelines ( WP:V, WP:RS, etc.), then those links can be whitelisted (if on the whitelist a plethora of pages is whitelisted then maybe we could reconsider this). CMBJ, it seems above that you prove reliability of this site here by using other sources .. are those other sources then not by definition the ones you should use here on wikipedia .. obviously, there seems to be misinformation mixed in with the correct information (if I have a document that says that grass is green stuff, that grows on the inside of my office windows, drinks beer for lunch and can't swim, then obviously, it is right in saying that grass is green .. but the rest of the document is completely unverifiable, and I would even have to find another source to show that grass is actually green ..). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
fredlwm.iblogger.org: 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
I'm requesting a whitelisting of this specific subdomain of iblogger.org for use as an additional External link on Lynx (web browser). The site is maintained by Frédéric L. W. Meunier, and is linked to from the Lynx homepage (see http://lynx.isc.org/current/#other, under DOS/Win32. The second link, http://www.pervalidus.net/cygwin/lynx/, which is maintained by Mr. Meunier, redirects to the iblogger.org site.). This site is one of only two places I could find current stable releases of Win32 ports of the Lynx browser. The parent domain was blocked in December of 2008 (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008) by Mike.lifeguard, after freewebtown.com was requested to be blacklisted on Dec. 5, 2008. It was included in a list of 117 domains with this explanation: "In addition, the following 117 domains are involved (after removing anything even remotely legitimate)". Thanks. Earthsound ( talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.15.93 ( talk • contribs)
This is not a spam link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.75.50 ( talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This site was blacklisted without notice or discussion by MrOllie following an editing dispute with him. I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. The only thing I have done is to undo his deletion of a link to the site made by someone else. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. Let me repeat that I have NOT added any links to it since the first warning when I was a newbie naively thinking that if it's relevant, it's ok. I won't add any in the future without at least proposing it first in a discussion page. I request the site's removal from the blacklist.-- Youngpossum ( talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to second the removal request. The discussion above seems to be getting little attention except from the person who proposed blacklisting and the person who did the blacklisting. Not one of the people accused of being a spammer was notified that their actions were being discussed here, nor were they given any opportunity to present their side of the case. This blacklisting was extremely premature, and it should be undone long enough for some consideration by uninvolved editors. Just to clarify, I am not among those accused of spamming, and I have no connection to the site in question aside from having seen an "External Links" discussion on a page where I was taking part in discussion of another topic. Questionic ( talk) 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not a spam link. The site is entirely about Nipples and Nipples Health. Why is this even tagged as spam? I only had one link I put on the Nipple page. You don't want me to put my link on it. Alright, I understand it, but why did you flagged this as spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.187.101.12 ( talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We are a) not a linkfarm, b) you were pushing that link, while it got removed over and over, without discussion and while being warned, and c) as MER-C notes here, that type of edits is against our policies and guidelines. The behaviour you showed when adding that link, is here defined as spamming, and this request is hence Declined.
As a specialist on the subjects, maybe you could actually help out with the articles without promoting your site? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
May i ask the reason why you blocking web sites (www.pidolphin.com) which provides free advanced financial calculator in many asset classes ? There are many external links in many wiki pages which is not blocked or verified. PiDolhin is purely an educational web site based on financial engineering text books. It is unfair to be blocked. I am sure many financial engineering students will use www.pidoplhin.com when they study financial (derivatives) theorems. regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Dirk: I don't agree with your decision but thanks for your time and consideration. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 ( talk) 08:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
kanchanaburi-info.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
I'm not sure why this domain is blacklisted. Kanchanaburi-info.com is an on-line destination guide to Thailand's Kanchanaburi province in English & German language and offers up-to-date information for tourists visiting this province. Such as bus & train timetable, sights with current entrance fees, calendar of events etc. which could be useful to visitors of wikipedia & wikitravel.
I would like to ask you kindly to review my website and remove it from your blacklist.
Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.50.182 ( talk • contribs)
This turned up on the blacklist. As best I can determine, this is a consortium of local newspapers (some of them major newspapers) in the United States that share the name "Examiner"--which would normally be considered an ideal, proper source for the articles on Wikipedia. So why would this site be blacklisted? I think it should be removed. Trackinfo ( talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am respectfully requesting a reconsideration of the blacklisting of cafepress.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 and am ultimately requesting that it be removed from the blacklist for the reasons outlined below. I have included the reason for the blacklisting including a link to the initial blacklisting explanation, the reasons it is not necessary anymore and the link summary reference to the domain.
(1) It seems that with this blacklisting a significant amount of content that could contain relevant information or be useful to Wikipedia site visitors or those looking for information is now inaccessible. Therefore the blacklisting of the entire CafePress site save for one page seems overly excessive, controversial and in some cases detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia and to its position as a relevant resource to the internet as it exists today and as it will evolve.
(A.) One example of a piece of content that exists on the CafePress site which may be useful to Wikipedia site visitors includes the content at this sub domain http://blog. Within the following folders and at the following page: /2010/08/09/pillow-fights-in-the-sky-paella-and-a-gaga-crowd-surfing/ It’s silly that I have to reference the URL that way, but necessary due to the blacklisting. It is also a hassle for me to list the page that way and for anyone who wants to view the page to visit that page when it is listed that way. In any regard the post contains useful information which may be used as a citation in some Wikipedia articles and contains relevant information but is not promotional.
(B.) Other areas where CafePress may serve as a viable reference could include (a.) the tags page or (b.) the XML site map which may serve as references in technical articles that delve into subjects as specific as mega site maps where a link to an example of what a site map looks like on a live domain may improve the comprehension level of those trying to understand the article or as general as a section of an article on websites talking about how large websites make content accessible.
(C.) Additional sections of the site that can serve as valuable resources which can be used as citations in Wikipedia articles while not violating any of Wikipedia’s terms may include some of the pages in some or all of these sections of the site:
(a.) The press release section, (b.) the cultural barometer, (c.) the historical time line, (d.) the team section and a multitude of other sections which would require an extensive amount of time to list. Much of the content on these pages cannot be added to Wikipedia articles where they may be relevant. Due to reasons defined by Wikipedia including copyright and lengthy amount of detail the text on these pages cannot be added directly to articles and therefore should be referenced as sources or links per the Wikipedia external linking policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL . However these links cannot be added due to the blacklisting and therefore all of the articles that would benefit from these inclusions or for sourcing are weaker, less accurate and less relevant resources than they could be as a direct result of the blacklisting.
(2) Additionally in the What Should Be Linked section of the Wikipedia external linking policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL it states that an article about a book or some other type of media should be linked to a site hosting a copy of the work. Since CafePress is the only source that hosts copies of certain books and certain media published through CafePress, it should definitively be linked to according to that statement. Many of the pages mentioned above also fit within point number 3 in the What Should Be Linked section of the external link policy page of Wikipedia.
(3) The purposes mentioned above for including these types of links would fall outside any of the purposes listed in the Links normally to be avoided section of the External Linking Policy page, reasons listed on the SPAM page, external link spamming page, what Wikipedia is not page and specific sections within those pages that were listed in the original blacklisting.
(4) CafePress is an extremely prevalent part of today’s internet culture with a top 500 U.S. Alexa ranking and a top 1500 overall Alexa ranking according to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/CafePress.com (according to the data on the day I am posting this). Therefore the potential for ground breaking changes, technology, information, media or news relevant to the CafePress domain which may need referenced is extreme and therefore warrants the ability to be referenced.
(5) At the time the site was added to the blacklist, it was questioned as a controversial decision. Not only is this blacklisting extreme and somewhat detrimental to the overall quality of Wikipedia as an informational reference, it is also likely unnecessary at this point in time.
(6) It appears the only links that the argument for a blacklisting of CafePress specially refer to or that were said to have violated the spam policy several years ago when this blacklisting was made are affiliate links. Specifically the complaint which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=208339685#Cafepress is due the fact that affiliates were adding their links to Wikipedia for the purpose of sales. Affiliate links within CafePress can easily be blocked from Wikipedia to prevent this problem from occurring as detailed in possible solution 1. Additionally, this problem will likely not occur now due to the evolution of internet culture as outlined in possible solution 3. The good, relevant or useful content on the domain does not belong on the Wikipedia blacklist.
(7) Therefore I would propose one of several solutions to allow Wikipedia and its site visitors to benefit from content that could be useful within CafePress but to avoid the small section of the site that fits the complaint. Possibly consider one of these resolutions:
1. Including only affiliate pages on CafePress within the Wikipedia blacklist This is probably the most logical and apt solution as those are the only pages that have been mentioned in the argument for the blacklisting. Since the URLs of all of these pages contain a common character that the pages which I’ve mentioned would serve as relevant resources do not contain (the ? character), all pages containing a ? on CafePress could be blacklisted while other pages would not be on the list. This could be done with use of a script.
2. Extensive white listing of pages within CafePress that could serve as relevant sources or all pages outside the affiliate section. This would have the same effect as possibility 1 but would be a far more manual process.
3. Provisionally removing CafePress from the blacklist. The blacklisting was implemented over 2 years ago. The Wikipedia site, the CafePress site and the communities associated with each site have evolved significantly in that time period. Therefore, there would likely be no issue at this point in time if CafePress were not on the Wikipedia blacklist. Therefore, removing CafePress entirely from the blacklist may at this time be a viable option.
Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebTech02 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 September 2010
intima.intimal.co.cc: 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 My university official student government website turned up on the blacklist. Actually, I can get it, it is because we using co.cc domain. But, I can ensure you this site is highly maintained and information is always qualified which would be considerable ideal to put at a qualified link as intima.intimal.co.cc. The official website didn't have any ads and just information regarding what is the student government acting currently and upcoming news or events. I think it should be removed.
Thanks in advanced.
Please Remove my Site from BlackList www.tasselnfringe.com I am not expert and do not know how this work, Once i have listed my site in wiki and they blocked it, Do not know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honor Cords ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am writing because I am attempting to place a new site on an American physician notable for a bestselling book in the 1990s that was turned into an award-winning television movie I recently saw. I did some research and found more information supported by references that I believe makes this person noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I saw that in October 2006 someone attempted to post a wiki page on this person, which was deleted and subsequently blacklisted; one of the people who made this decision, Altenmann, has since been banned from Wiki for sockpuppetry.
Please reply at your earliest convenience with your decision, and I would be happy to post the entry with the references I have found. Thank you and have a nice day. Shotcallerballerballer ( talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC),
Hello Beetstra; the domain I am referring to is the Wiki website for Yvonne Thornton, which I was informed was on the blacklist when I attempted to post my entry with references. Shotcallerballerballer ( talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Beetstra. It worked...thank you so much for your help! Shotcallerballerballer ( talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
elusiva.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
I am unsure why this site was added to the Wikipedia blacklist, but I can only imagine that it because people were forcefully trying to add links from the website to certain articles back in 2008, and it might have been a violation. Nevertheless, I would request that it be removed from said list. While I am an employee of Elusiva, I am not making this request on their behalf, I am not a member of their marketing department, and I hope to present this case in the most unbiased way I can. Elusiva is a software company which licenses virtualization software to over 30,000 customers and partners. Elusiva software is featured on the websites of several software resellers and there have been press-articles released dedicated to describing the benefits Elusiva software. It seems that the Wikipedia articles regarding Desktop Virtualization and Application Virtualization are both somewhat incomplete without the mention of Elusiva. Additionally, perhaps, in the foreseeable future, an informative article covering Elusiva—itself becoming a well-known technology provider—would be something of interest to the public. I cannot determine whether or not the excessive editing with links to elusiva.com (which indicate some conflict of interest) will ever happen again, but I would argue that it seems to have ceased for some time now. Perhaps, in light of all the above, the site should be removed from the blacklist. TovB ( talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear wiki-friends, I have spammed my website in external links area and it seems as if it is in blacklist now (probaby locak spirulina blacklist). I have rearranged the external links and now it should be fine. Could someone check it or help me to get my webpage out of spam list? The external links that are present now (the scientific abstracts) on Spirulina topic belong to me also. I have finally found a way to publish scientific documents except of my website. I am not expecting to get hits for that. I would like the information which are scientific, to be published anywhere. True scientific information should be available and for free for everyone. As you may check all the external links, there are no spam. I am a PhD student writing my thesis and publishing some information on my webpage, and try to do the same in wiki pages. please get me on whitelist for spirulina. no more mistakes from me anymore. See external links of spirulina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_%28dietary_supplement%29 Please check this out. algbiotek.com is mine also as Spirunella.com, as well as bioalg.com, mikroalg.com, hawaiian-spirulina.com, spirulina-hawaii.com, hawaiian-spirulina.info, algalogy.com, algaloji.com, spirulinam.com, etc. I JUST WANT TO publish true information in the right way and also it should be OK for the rules. This is just a misunderstanding so please get me on the whitelist.
I would like algbiotek.com and balgbiotek.com and algbiotek.com to be removed from local spirulina and/or general spam blacklist. I have by mistake added external links, and I have spammed this link. I will not spam about external links anymore because I have read the rules of Wiki and now it is clear for me. Now i can no longer post algbiotek.com, even if it is not spam link - a scientific link... i want to clean this thing. I learned the rules are clear and I will try to improve and contribute without any spams in future. Please help me get these links on the whitelist or out of the blacklist. Thanks in advance. Sonerh ( talk) 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a follow up to answer the questions asked by Jehochman and is in a new section as requested on the old CafePress section.
Q: What is your connection to CafePress?
A: I don't work at CafePress if that is what you are implying by this question. But this is not the main point we are discussing here. The question is whether or not the site deserves should be removed from the blacklist.
Q: Can you point to a single page on CafePress that might be used as a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia?
A: Yes, if you would take the time to read the several paragraph re-inclusion request then you would find many examples. Overall there are too many pages to list, but here are a couple examples:
Highly pertinent information about the history of the company which should be listed from the CafePress article: cafepress.com/cp/info/about/timeline.aspx
Current event relevant information that could be used as a source in various articles such as one on Lady Gaga: blog.cafepress.com/2010/08/09/pillow-fights-in-the-sky-paella-and-a-gaga-crowd-surfing/
Information about executives relevant to the company which could serve as further information on some of these people: cafepress.com/cp/info/about/team.aspx#fdurham
Statement: The only possible link I could imagine being needed is one link to the official website on the CafePress article.
Answer: Please see above listed pages. There are more pages than I can list, but hopefully those three will give you the generally idea.
Statement: Above, you've made a lot of spurious arguments, such as Alexa rankings.
Answer: Perhaps you are not familiar with how Alexa rankings work. The lower the Alexa ranking, the more traffic and pages views you have. So the site with the most page views should have an Alexa ranking of 1. That is the top Alexa ranking. Now that you know this, you can see that the comments about Alexa rankings are not spurious arguments. In fact there are no spurious arguments in the request to de-blacklist. Please don't make accusations that are not supported by facts.
Statement: I'm not too inclined to read your wall of text. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Response: If you won't read the request for removal from the blacklist, can you please at least find someone to read it and respond apropriatley?
I hope that these clarifications move things along in a positive direction.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or please fulfill the request.
WebTech02 ( talk) 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
suite101.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 I was editing Interzone (magazine) this morning and was shocked to find Suite 101 blacklisted. Suite 101 is an excellent book and magazine review site and I've never seen them engage in any spam related activities. Their reviews are well respected by authors and readers and are often written by well-known or emerging authors and critics. For example, the article I was attempting to link to from within a reference was written by Colin Harvey, a SF author with a major book just released by one of the biggest SF publishers in the UK and US. I searched through the log but couldn't determine why someone blacklisted this site. I have no connection with Suite 101, aside from regularly reading their SF/F reviews. Thanks for considering this.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If you go to www.sfvs.co.cc you will see that this is not a malicious site. I don't even know why this site is listed as spam. I need this site to be un blocked because it is needed for citations for 1. trail mix and 2. SFVS. So please will you spare a helpful scout from his hardship and unblock this site :( -- Talk ««« OisinisiO»»» Talk 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was doing a scan of the blacklist and came across a handful of entries that are listed twice, and some that are both here and on the global blacklist.
I can remove the duplicates here; but I wanted to ask before removing the entries that are both listed here and on global - to me, it's reasonable to remove the local entry if it's also on global; but wasn't sure if there was a reason for having the entries at both. Also, for those who have access to the global blacklist, I found a handful that are listed multiple times on global. Note in the lists that the entry for \bbestdissertation\.com\b
is both listed twice locally and listed on global.
\baprilcalendar\.net\b \bastrocytoma\.org\b \baugustcalendar\.net\b \bazotemia\.net\b \bbestdissertation\.com\b \bblack-cohosh\.org\b \bcalendaryear\.net\b \bcompartmentsyndrome\.net\b \bcure-tinnitus-guide\.blogspot\.com\b \bddrsdram\.net\b \bendstagekidneydisease\.com\b \bfamilyext\.net\b \bfinancet\.org\b \bfinancialdict\.org\b \bfindchalet\.com\b \bhonestevivere\.com\b \bhyperkalemia\.net\b \binfectiousmononucleosis\.org\b \blupus-erythematosus\.com\b \bmodifiedcarphotos\.com\b \bmotorpix\.com\b \bnintendo-wii-homebrew-unlock-hack\.blogspot\.com\b \boctobercalendar\.net\b \bornithine\.net\b \bparesthesia\.net\b \bpatio-covers\.com\b \bpaudarco\.org\b \bpernicious-anemia\.net\b \bradiculopathy\.net\b \btheubie\.com\b \bthyroidproblems\.org\b \bturmericbenefits\.com\b
\bafricacupofnationshighlights\.blogspot\.com\b \bbestdissertation\.com\b \bbestessay\.org\b \bbestessays\.ca\b \bbestessays\.com\.au\b \bbesttermpaper\.com\b \bcountryguidebook\.com\b \bcustom-essaywriting\.blogspot\.com\b \bdiscussionshome\.com\b \belectronicmusicfree\.com\b \bessaydot\.com\b \bessayontime\.com\b \bessaywriters\.net\b \blifesyrup\.com\b \bmedicanalife\.com\b \bmedicanatv\.com\b \bonline-sport-betting\.org\b \bpsalmtours\.com\b \bresearch-service\.com\b \bresumesplanet\.com\b \brushessay\.com\b \bslots-machines-online\.net\b \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b \bterm-paper-research\.com\b \btt-group\.net\b \bwikipediahatescheerleaders\.blogspot\.com\b
\bcatatansiboyiiii\.blogspot\.com\b \beasyurl\.net\b \bhuaweie220\.com\b \bhuaweie220\.net\b \binmassage\.net\b \bis\.gd\b \bresearch-service\.com\b \bre-shui\.cn\b \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b \btr\.im\b \bvornesitzen\.de\b \bxr\.com\b \byy\.vc\b
--- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is some list/reasoning for blacklisted sites that i could view somehow. I recently had requested 1 link to be whitelisted, but would like to see the reasons for its block because the "about" page (and a reading thereafter) doesnt indicate any [obvious] bias. Lihaas ( talk) 07:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)
Would it be possible if esybuy.com was added to the list of prohibited spam URLs? A number of users (different IPs) keep adding the URL to Taobao; note how they've piped it so that it appears as [(http)esybuy.com/taobao_english.asp www.china.org.cn/english/business/239421.htm], which seems to be an attempt to fool people who click the link, anticipating a reference. Diffs: [1] [2] [3] -- 李博杰 | — Talk contribs email 13:24, 9 September 2010 (UTC)
Frequently spammed blog - MrOllie ( talk) 13:45, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. In fact it is quite clear that MrOllie has added the website here without informing me about this following an editing dispute where he deleted a link to the site made by someone else, which I find sneaky and underhand. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. -- Youngpossum ( talk) 15:03, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I think blacklisting this magazine is an excessive response to the problem of its enthusiasts being ignorant of Wikipedia policy, and more interested in adding what they consider useful information on a topic they know about than they are in becoming general editors here. There is no way this respectable source of hard-to-find information about respected literary figures deserves to be blacklisted as if it were a trivial fansite or somebody's blog larded with adlinks. I have no connection with the magazine and my interest is in making Wikipedia better. If Wikipedia is only to be edited by oldbies who have a wide range of interests and contribute to lots of different articles, while anybody with a special interest or knowledge who comes here to add something he knows and cares about should be sharply rapped on the knuckles as a SPA, then Wikipedia will be impoverished. Questionic ( talk) Here are 3 links from the contributions of the alleged spammers above. I find it easier to understand why people were eager to add them to the relevant articles than to understand why people interested in these authors should be deprived of a chance to read more about them in the LIterateur:
Unfortunately, this edit will not be posted if I link to the articles that should surely be considered as part of the evidence. So, for "redactedbythisblacklist" you will have to type in "www.literateur.com" Questionic ( talk) 18:31, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I have also been looking at the actual contribution histories of the accounts described above as "Spammers". For example, the very first one 131.111.141.97 ( 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) is clearly an occasional editor of Wikipedia articles about literary figures. One link on Jan 25, reverted Apr 1. 2 edits to TS Eliot in March. 3 informative edits to Will Self and 2 to Hanif Kereishi on Apr 14 based on material in the Literateur, all reverted. It seems to me circular reasoning to declare that all links to literateur.com are promotional spam so anybody who wants to use information from it must therefore be a spammer. Here is another from the list of "spammers" 79.68.196.107 ( 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), who on April 2 made 2 constructive edits to Stanley Wells, one adding a new publication and the other linking to Wells' interview at Literateur.com. In my opinion, such editing is not somebody spamming for Literateur, it is somebody adding information about Stanley Wells.
There has also been ongoing discussion at Talk:James_S._Shapiro#literateur, where several different editors have urged the inclusion of a link to the Literateur interview. I do not see why non-spammer editors who think a source is useful should be blocked from using it just because "spammers" linked to it in the past. Questionic ( talk) 13:39, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
I knew you were going to say that. No, Questionic. The problem is worse. And those are reverts, not separate insertions. They did not use the site without having seen the edit before, they did not come with the resource themselves, they did not pick it up somewhere else and found a separate addition. I said, I have been around spamming a long time. If I say it is a case of WP:DUCK, then expect that I did my research, as I expect that Mr. Ollie and A. B. did. The IPs are in two closely related geographical areas (not just all over the world, so that they are completely independent editors). But see diff vs. diff. Two completely different IPs, being 2 months apart, doing edits which are adding the same content with just slightly different wording, then we have diff by a third IP range, clearly pushing the insert. Then another IP just adds it as an external link in diff, and diff by YoungPossum (almost two weeks later, this is the only mainspace edit in over 2 weeks .. how did they know that the link here was deleted (OK, maybe looking at Mr. Ollies edits, still it is searching)?) to show they are all really related. Oh wait, in between, this IP identifies himself as YoungPossum, which is clearly in the ranges that we are discussing here (note the "You're not actually listening to me are you? I have stopped. You just insist on deleting any link to The Literateur made by people other than me!." by 88.224.220.88, and the reversions of removals by 'other' adders by Special:Contributions/88.224.220.88). By the way, this recent set of edits is by another range. Now, the 88-range is in a different country, but still by an editor who says he is involved in Literateur (YoungPossum). The others are all close, geographically and in type of edits, and clearly spamming. But then we go on. See here, on the 16th of March, where YoungPossum notices that the poem is with a dash inbetween .. strikingly, on the very same day, 'someone else' had repaired that on a completely other article .. I've been along spammers a long time, I do not believe in coincidence. But well. We always have diff and diff, or diff and diff, or even aggresively do this. All unrelated, you say, and still in good faith?? The info was contested, maybe for the wrong reason, but pushing it does not help, discussing - something that they knew how to do - would have been the way forward, not defending other spammers, and saying you yourself are not doing anything wrong. Maybe it was not YoungPossum doing all the insertions, the other editors (which do seem clearly involved as well!) did on themselves already do enough harm to make it suitable for blacklisting. This is a campaign, and I think YoungPossums defence should be here. Feel like filing an WP:SPI to see whether these groups of editors are really independent, or whether this is really a spam campaign? I am sorry that I had now to post all this here, I think this does not shed a good light on the people who have added the link .. Law_of_Unintended_Consequences. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 15:43, 27 August 2010 (UTC)
The spamming just goes on and on. The spammer now uses a new IP address every time, so blocking the user would not help, and it is also not a case for the sockpuppet investigations. So please add leawo.com to the blacklist.— J. M. ( talk) 01:53, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
pickegg.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
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:33, 2 September 2010 (UTC)
decorationpoint.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
Continual spamming by IPs at Cuckoo clock, Beer stein, Weather house; here are a few examples:
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Brianhe ( talk • contribs) 18:35, 7 September 2010
These socks have been attempting to add this link as per here Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Junepar65/Archive Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 20:03, 8 September 2010 (UTC)
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 10:13, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
vardh.com: Linksearch en - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C Cross-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Local - COIBot-XWiki - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.org • Live link: http://www.vardh.com
Site consists primarily of advertising—more than 80% on most pages. Non-advertisement content is of poor quality (aggregation of un-cited quotations) or readily available elsewhere (public domain literature). I have reverted links from multiple articles here and at Wikiquote. ~ Ningauble ( talk) 14:41, 11 September 2010 (UTC)
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 05:10, 13 September 2010 (UTC)
See WikiProject Spam report MER-C 02:10, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
See also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Aug 1#Leimo Laser comb. MER-C 06:02, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Related domains:
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 18:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
Ongoing abuse for over a year by SPA accounts, continuing again today despite multiple warnings and discussions with other editors. At this point, enough is enough - the site has no encyclopedic value and the demonstrated ongoing abuse of promoting the site on Wikipedia demonstrates a persistent individual who does not wish to abide by site content policies. --- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 23:58, 26 September 2010 (UTC)
-- A. B. ( talk • contribs) 12:42, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
OoCities is a web archive, which is a helpful source to turn dead geocities links into working ones It was considered spam because oocities is ad-financed and there are alternatives (archive.org and webcitation.org) But it is stil helpful because many sites are only to be found there.
Yet, fortunately OoCities reacted and stated on their FAQ: "As of Sebtember 13. OoCities is free of ads for all visitors who are directed to us by Wikipedia to meet consensus with Wikipedia's regulations and the ad free nature of Wikipedia. Please send any further questions,feedback or suggestions to oocities[at]gmail[dot]com"
OoCities should be removed from the WP blacklist as the reason to put it here is no more —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.198.5.172 ( talk) 17:08, 15 September 2010 (UTC)
Oocities.com is a commercial website that benefits from Wikipedia traffic whether or not they show our readers their ads. There are many places besides oocities.com with archived material from Geocities.com. The thousands of spamlinks to oocities.com introduced just a month or so ago included many ad-filled pages saying they did not have the material at oocities but a clickthrough to archive.org might find it. Questionic ( talk) 13:39, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Remove from Blacklist:: The OoCities Archive itself gave no reason to distrust it. it stated to disable ads for the first time on 13 September The page clearly indentifies itself as a non commercial community driven effort which needs some ads to pay their hosting but (without any proven doubt) willing not to show ads to Wikipedia visitors There is no more reason not to make use of its service as much as for other archives as archive.org, webcitation.org, reocities.com, geocities.ws which are constantly used to update geocities.com links. Oocities.com is yet the most complete one archive. http://www.google.de/search?q=site%3Aoocities.com+oocities.com [8.8 Million results] Especially for those pages which are to be find at OoCities only people will need to use their Links. -- 79.198.4.205 ( talk) 14:53, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
Yet all appointments against the OoCities archive are based on the same preconceived impression by advertisments which were shown in the past. Since the archive clearly decided to remove thos advertisments permanently these reason is gone. Please make some uninvolved persons look up the issue instead of posting the same complaint several times. Please make your own Impressions to see if the Archive itself acts liable and permantly and sticks to its terms. Please give your vote not before you are able to make it up applying more to the present state than to the past one. — 79.198.4.205 ( talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:24, 16 September 2010 (UTC).
Keep on blacklist as the strong motivation of someone(s) to increase traffic to Oocities from Wikipedia created hours of extra work for editors in the past and could easily do so again if the ban is lifted. If there are individual pages in oocities that cannot be found elsewhere, Wikipedia has a "whitelisting" option available. Questionic ( talk) 12:51, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Following a discussion at the administrators' noticeboard, Encyclopedia Mythica was recently blacklisted. The premise of the argument for blacklisting was that the site contains gross misinformation, and pantheon.org/articles/e/eisa.html is cited as containing "total nonsense". As a result of the discussion, a bot was configured to purge references to the cite from our articles, and at least three AfDs were initiated: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Perendi, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prende, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Verbti.
Now, I am certainly not an expert in this area, but there does not appear to be any objective evidence to support any of these actions. The content of Encyclopedia Mythica's article on Eisa is echoed by a fair number of books, one dating back as far as 1895. The nominator did mention that we once propagated deliberate falsehoods from the site, but no verifiable examples of such were cited. Unless empirical information to support these actions can be found, I move that we delist the site and attempt damage control of related bot activity. — C M B J 21:22, 8 July 2010 (UTC)
I've read these discussions, and I think the answer is simple: Defer to Whitelist. If you have specific links, from which specific information can be used following our policies and guidelines ( WP:V, WP:RS, etc.), then those links can be whitelisted (if on the whitelist a plethora of pages is whitelisted then maybe we could reconsider this). CMBJ, it seems above that you prove reliability of this site here by using other sources .. are those other sources then not by definition the ones you should use here on wikipedia .. obviously, there seems to be misinformation mixed in with the correct information (if I have a document that says that grass is green stuff, that grows on the inside of my office windows, drinks beer for lunch and can't swim, then obviously, it is right in saying that grass is green .. but the rest of the document is completely unverifiable, and I would even have to find another source to show that grass is actually green ..). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
fredlwm.iblogger.org: 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
I'm requesting a whitelisting of this specific subdomain of iblogger.org for use as an additional External link on Lynx (web browser). The site is maintained by Frédéric L. W. Meunier, and is linked to from the Lynx homepage (see http://lynx.isc.org/current/#other, under DOS/Win32. The second link, http://www.pervalidus.net/cygwin/lynx/, which is maintained by Mr. Meunier, redirects to the iblogger.org site.). This site is one of only two places I could find current stable releases of Win32 ports of the Lynx browser. The parent domain was blocked in December of 2008 (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/Log/2008#December_2008) by Mike.lifeguard, after freewebtown.com was requested to be blacklisted on Dec. 5, 2008. It was included in a list of 117 domains with this explanation: "In addition, the following 117 domains are involved (after removing anything even remotely legitimate)". Thanks. Earthsound ( talk) 05:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.172.15.93 ( talk • contribs)
This is not a spam link. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.224.75.50 ( talk) 23:09, 20 August 2010 (UTC)
This site was blacklisted without notice or discussion by MrOllie following an editing dispute with him. I would like to point out that I have not added any links to literateur.com since I was first told about the COI rule. The only thing I have done is to undo his deletion of a link to the site made by someone else. I cannot be held responsible for other people adding links to it. I would also like to refer you to the External links noticeboard where I have explained the matter in more detail and there has been a response that suggests that the link is relevant, useful and that this blacklisting is an overreaction. I request that the site be taken off the blacklist. Let me point out that the magazine is not a 'fan page' for it has many articles, interviews, reviews, stories etc. It is not a 'personal blog' because it has at least fifty contributors. It also has interviews with Pulitzer prize winning poet Paul Muldoon, two leading academics who were knighted for their services to literature, the famous and award winning writers Will Self and Hanif Kureishi and former Poet Laureate Andrew Motion. It has published two new poems by Simon Armitage whose poems are on the GCSE syllabus. It regularly gets review copies from leading publishers including Penguin, Faber, Little Brown. It has connections with organisations funded by the Arts Council. In short it is a bank of literary information and to blacklist it counteracts Wikipedia's drive to provide useful information. Let me repeat that I have NOT added any links to it since the first warning when I was a newbie naively thinking that if it's relevant, it's ok. I won't add any in the future without at least proposing it first in a discussion page. I request the site's removal from the blacklist.-- Youngpossum ( talk) 15:18, 24 August 2010 (UTC)
I would like to second the removal request. The discussion above seems to be getting little attention except from the person who proposed blacklisting and the person who did the blacklisting. Not one of the people accused of being a spammer was notified that their actions were being discussed here, nor were they given any opportunity to present their side of the case. This blacklisting was extremely premature, and it should be undone long enough for some consideration by uninvolved editors. Just to clarify, I am not among those accused of spamming, and I have no connection to the site in question aside from having seen an "External Links" discussion on a page where I was taking part in discussion of another topic. Questionic ( talk) 05:28, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
This is not a spam link. The site is entirely about Nipples and Nipples Health. Why is this even tagged as spam? I only had one link I put on the Nipple page. You don't want me to put my link on it. Alright, I understand it, but why did you flagged this as spam? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.187.101.12 ( talk) 17:20, 25 August 2010 (UTC)
We are a) not a linkfarm, b) you were pushing that link, while it got removed over and over, without discussion and while being warned, and c) as MER-C notes here, that type of edits is against our policies and guidelines. The behaviour you showed when adding that link, is here defined as spamming, and this request is hence Declined.
As a specialist on the subjects, maybe you could actually help out with the articles without promoting your site? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 07:34, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
May i ask the reason why you blocking web sites (www.pidolphin.com) which provides free advanced financial calculator in many asset classes ? There are many external links in many wiki pages which is not blocked or verified. PiDolhin is purely an educational web site based on financial engineering text books. It is unfair to be blocked. I am sure many financial engineering students will use www.pidoplhin.com when they study financial (derivatives) theorems. regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 ( talk) 13:06, 26 August 2010 (UTC)
Dirk: I don't agree with your decision but thanks for your time and consideration. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.254.146.36 ( talk) 08:24, 31 August 2010 (UTC)
kanchanaburi-info.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
I'm not sure why this domain is blacklisted. Kanchanaburi-info.com is an on-line destination guide to Thailand's Kanchanaburi province in English & German language and offers up-to-date information for tourists visiting this province. Such as bus & train timetable, sights with current entrance fees, calendar of events etc. which could be useful to visitors of wikipedia & wikitravel.
I would like to ask you kindly to review my website and remove it from your blacklist.
Thank you.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.41.50.182 ( talk • contribs)
This turned up on the blacklist. As best I can determine, this is a consortium of local newspapers (some of them major newspapers) in the United States that share the name "Examiner"--which would normally be considered an ideal, proper source for the articles on Wikipedia. So why would this site be blacklisted? I think it should be removed. Trackinfo ( talk) 20:29, 29 August 2010 (UTC)
I am respectfully requesting a reconsideration of the blacklisting of cafepress.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 and am ultimately requesting that it be removed from the blacklist for the reasons outlined below. I have included the reason for the blacklisting including a link to the initial blacklisting explanation, the reasons it is not necessary anymore and the link summary reference to the domain.
(1) It seems that with this blacklisting a significant amount of content that could contain relevant information or be useful to Wikipedia site visitors or those looking for information is now inaccessible. Therefore the blacklisting of the entire CafePress site save for one page seems overly excessive, controversial and in some cases detrimental to the spirit of Wikipedia and to its position as a relevant resource to the internet as it exists today and as it will evolve.
(A.) One example of a piece of content that exists on the CafePress site which may be useful to Wikipedia site visitors includes the content at this sub domain http://blog. Within the following folders and at the following page: /2010/08/09/pillow-fights-in-the-sky-paella-and-a-gaga-crowd-surfing/ It’s silly that I have to reference the URL that way, but necessary due to the blacklisting. It is also a hassle for me to list the page that way and for anyone who wants to view the page to visit that page when it is listed that way. In any regard the post contains useful information which may be used as a citation in some Wikipedia articles and contains relevant information but is not promotional.
(B.) Other areas where CafePress may serve as a viable reference could include (a.) the tags page or (b.) the XML site map which may serve as references in technical articles that delve into subjects as specific as mega site maps where a link to an example of what a site map looks like on a live domain may improve the comprehension level of those trying to understand the article or as general as a section of an article on websites talking about how large websites make content accessible.
(C.) Additional sections of the site that can serve as valuable resources which can be used as citations in Wikipedia articles while not violating any of Wikipedia’s terms may include some of the pages in some or all of these sections of the site:
(a.) The press release section, (b.) the cultural barometer, (c.) the historical time line, (d.) the team section and a multitude of other sections which would require an extensive amount of time to list. Much of the content on these pages cannot be added to Wikipedia articles where they may be relevant. Due to reasons defined by Wikipedia including copyright and lengthy amount of detail the text on these pages cannot be added directly to articles and therefore should be referenced as sources or links per the Wikipedia external linking policy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL . However these links cannot be added due to the blacklisting and therefore all of the articles that would benefit from these inclusions or for sourcing are weaker, less accurate and less relevant resources than they could be as a direct result of the blacklisting.
(2) Additionally in the What Should Be Linked section of the Wikipedia external linking policy page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:EL it states that an article about a book or some other type of media should be linked to a site hosting a copy of the work. Since CafePress is the only source that hosts copies of certain books and certain media published through CafePress, it should definitively be linked to according to that statement. Many of the pages mentioned above also fit within point number 3 in the What Should Be Linked section of the external link policy page of Wikipedia.
(3) The purposes mentioned above for including these types of links would fall outside any of the purposes listed in the Links normally to be avoided section of the External Linking Policy page, reasons listed on the SPAM page, external link spamming page, what Wikipedia is not page and specific sections within those pages that were listed in the original blacklisting.
(4) CafePress is an extremely prevalent part of today’s internet culture with a top 500 U.S. Alexa ranking and a top 1500 overall Alexa ranking according to http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/CafePress.com (according to the data on the day I am posting this). Therefore the potential for ground breaking changes, technology, information, media or news relevant to the CafePress domain which may need referenced is extreme and therefore warrants the ability to be referenced.
(5) At the time the site was added to the blacklist, it was questioned as a controversial decision. Not only is this blacklisting extreme and somewhat detrimental to the overall quality of Wikipedia as an informational reference, it is also likely unnecessary at this point in time.
(6) It appears the only links that the argument for a blacklisting of CafePress specially refer to or that were said to have violated the spam policy several years ago when this blacklisting was made are affiliate links. Specifically the complaint which can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&oldid=208339685#Cafepress is due the fact that affiliates were adding their links to Wikipedia for the purpose of sales. Affiliate links within CafePress can easily be blocked from Wikipedia to prevent this problem from occurring as detailed in possible solution 1. Additionally, this problem will likely not occur now due to the evolution of internet culture as outlined in possible solution 3. The good, relevant or useful content on the domain does not belong on the Wikipedia blacklist.
(7) Therefore I would propose one of several solutions to allow Wikipedia and its site visitors to benefit from content that could be useful within CafePress but to avoid the small section of the site that fits the complaint. Possibly consider one of these resolutions:
1. Including only affiliate pages on CafePress within the Wikipedia blacklist This is probably the most logical and apt solution as those are the only pages that have been mentioned in the argument for the blacklisting. Since the URLs of all of these pages contain a common character that the pages which I’ve mentioned would serve as relevant resources do not contain (the ? character), all pages containing a ? on CafePress could be blacklisted while other pages would not be on the list. This could be done with use of a script.
2. Extensive white listing of pages within CafePress that could serve as relevant sources or all pages outside the affiliate section. This would have the same effect as possibility 1 but would be a far more manual process.
3. Provisionally removing CafePress from the blacklist. The blacklisting was implemented over 2 years ago. The Wikipedia site, the CafePress site and the communities associated with each site have evolved significantly in that time period. Therefore, there would likely be no issue at this point in time if CafePress were not on the Wikipedia blacklist. Therefore, removing CafePress entirely from the blacklist may at this time be a viable option.
Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by WebTech02 ( talk • contribs) 01:37, 1 September 2010
intima.intimal.co.cc: 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 My university official student government website turned up on the blacklist. Actually, I can get it, it is because we using co.cc domain. But, I can ensure you this site is highly maintained and information is always qualified which would be considerable ideal to put at a qualified link as intima.intimal.co.cc. The official website didn't have any ads and just information regarding what is the student government acting currently and upcoming news or events. I think it should be removed.
Thanks in advanced.
Please Remove my Site from BlackList www.tasselnfringe.com I am not expert and do not know how this work, Once i have listed my site in wiki and they blocked it, Do not know why. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Honor Cords ( talk • contribs) 02:47, 6 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello. I am writing because I am attempting to place a new site on an American physician notable for a bestselling book in the 1990s that was turned into an award-winning television movie I recently saw. I did some research and found more information supported by references that I believe makes this person noteworthy of inclusion in Wikipedia. I saw that in October 2006 someone attempted to post a wiki page on this person, which was deleted and subsequently blacklisted; one of the people who made this decision, Altenmann, has since been banned from Wiki for sockpuppetry.
Please reply at your earliest convenience with your decision, and I would be happy to post the entry with the references I have found. Thank you and have a nice day. Shotcallerballerballer ( talk) 15:25, 7 September 2010 (UTC),
Hello Beetstra; the domain I am referring to is the Wiki website for Yvonne Thornton, which I was informed was on the blacklist when I attempted to post my entry with references. Shotcallerballerballer ( talk) 15:31, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
Hello Beetstra. It worked...thank you so much for your help! Shotcallerballerballer ( talk) 15:56, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
elusiva.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
I am unsure why this site was added to the Wikipedia blacklist, but I can only imagine that it because people were forcefully trying to add links from the website to certain articles back in 2008, and it might have been a violation. Nevertheless, I would request that it be removed from said list. While I am an employee of Elusiva, I am not making this request on their behalf, I am not a member of their marketing department, and I hope to present this case in the most unbiased way I can. Elusiva is a software company which licenses virtualization software to over 30,000 customers and partners. Elusiva software is featured on the websites of several software resellers and there have been press-articles released dedicated to describing the benefits Elusiva software. It seems that the Wikipedia articles regarding Desktop Virtualization and Application Virtualization are both somewhat incomplete without the mention of Elusiva. Additionally, perhaps, in the foreseeable future, an informative article covering Elusiva—itself becoming a well-known technology provider—would be something of interest to the public. I cannot determine whether or not the excessive editing with links to elusiva.com (which indicate some conflict of interest) will ever happen again, but I would argue that it seems to have ceased for some time now. Perhaps, in light of all the above, the site should be removed from the blacklist. TovB ( talk) 20:36, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
Dear wiki-friends, I have spammed my website in external links area and it seems as if it is in blacklist now (probaby locak spirulina blacklist). I have rearranged the external links and now it should be fine. Could someone check it or help me to get my webpage out of spam list? The external links that are present now (the scientific abstracts) on Spirulina topic belong to me also. I have finally found a way to publish scientific documents except of my website. I am not expecting to get hits for that. I would like the information which are scientific, to be published anywhere. True scientific information should be available and for free for everyone. As you may check all the external links, there are no spam. I am a PhD student writing my thesis and publishing some information on my webpage, and try to do the same in wiki pages. please get me on whitelist for spirulina. no more mistakes from me anymore. See external links of spirulina: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spirulina_%28dietary_supplement%29 Please check this out. algbiotek.com is mine also as Spirunella.com, as well as bioalg.com, mikroalg.com, hawaiian-spirulina.com, spirulina-hawaii.com, hawaiian-spirulina.info, algalogy.com, algaloji.com, spirulinam.com, etc. I JUST WANT TO publish true information in the right way and also it should be OK for the rules. This is just a misunderstanding so please get me on the whitelist.
I would like algbiotek.com and balgbiotek.com and algbiotek.com to be removed from local spirulina and/or general spam blacklist. I have by mistake added external links, and I have spammed this link. I will not spam about external links anymore because I have read the rules of Wiki and now it is clear for me. Now i can no longer post algbiotek.com, even if it is not spam link - a scientific link... i want to clean this thing. I learned the rules are clear and I will try to improve and contribute without any spams in future. Please help me get these links on the whitelist or out of the blacklist. Thanks in advance. Sonerh ( talk) 22:09, 14 September 2010 (UTC)
This is a follow up to answer the questions asked by Jehochman and is in a new section as requested on the old CafePress section.
Q: What is your connection to CafePress?
A: I don't work at CafePress if that is what you are implying by this question. But this is not the main point we are discussing here. The question is whether or not the site deserves should be removed from the blacklist.
Q: Can you point to a single page on CafePress that might be used as a reliable source for any article on Wikipedia?
A: Yes, if you would take the time to read the several paragraph re-inclusion request then you would find many examples. Overall there are too many pages to list, but here are a couple examples:
Highly pertinent information about the history of the company which should be listed from the CafePress article: cafepress.com/cp/info/about/timeline.aspx
Current event relevant information that could be used as a source in various articles such as one on Lady Gaga: blog.cafepress.com/2010/08/09/pillow-fights-in-the-sky-paella-and-a-gaga-crowd-surfing/
Information about executives relevant to the company which could serve as further information on some of these people: cafepress.com/cp/info/about/team.aspx#fdurham
Statement: The only possible link I could imagine being needed is one link to the official website on the CafePress article.
Answer: Please see above listed pages. There are more pages than I can list, but hopefully those three will give you the generally idea.
Statement: Above, you've made a lot of spurious arguments, such as Alexa rankings.
Answer: Perhaps you are not familiar with how Alexa rankings work. The lower the Alexa ranking, the more traffic and pages views you have. So the site with the most page views should have an Alexa ranking of 1. That is the top Alexa ranking. Now that you know this, you can see that the comments about Alexa rankings are not spurious arguments. In fact there are no spurious arguments in the request to de-blacklist. Please don't make accusations that are not supported by facts.
Statement: I'm not too inclined to read your wall of text. Jehochman Talk 12:56, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
Response: If you won't read the request for removal from the blacklist, can you please at least find someone to read it and respond apropriatley?
I hope that these clarifications move things along in a positive direction.
Please let me know if you have any other questions or please fulfill the request.
WebTech02 ( talk) 22:28, 17 September 2010 (UTC)
suite101.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 I was editing Interzone (magazine) this morning and was shocked to find Suite 101 blacklisted. Suite 101 is an excellent book and magazine review site and I've never seen them engage in any spam related activities. Their reviews are well respected by authors and readers and are often written by well-known or emerging authors and critics. For example, the article I was attempting to link to from within a reference was written by Colin Harvey, a SF author with a major book just released by one of the biggest SF publishers in the UK and US. I searched through the log but couldn't determine why someone blacklisted this site. I have no connection with Suite 101, aside from regularly reading their SF/F reviews. Thanks for considering this.-- SouthernNights ( talk) 12:26, 18 September 2010 (UTC)
If you go to www.sfvs.co.cc you will see that this is not a malicious site. I don't even know why this site is listed as spam. I need this site to be un blocked because it is needed for citations for 1. trail mix and 2. SFVS. So please will you spare a helpful scout from his hardship and unblock this site :( -- Talk ««« OisinisiO»»» Talk 19:59, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
I was doing a scan of the blacklist and came across a handful of entries that are listed twice, and some that are both here and on the global blacklist.
I can remove the duplicates here; but I wanted to ask before removing the entries that are both listed here and on global - to me, it's reasonable to remove the local entry if it's also on global; but wasn't sure if there was a reason for having the entries at both. Also, for those who have access to the global blacklist, I found a handful that are listed multiple times on global. Note in the lists that the entry for \bbestdissertation\.com\b
is both listed twice locally and listed on global.
\baprilcalendar\.net\b \bastrocytoma\.org\b \baugustcalendar\.net\b \bazotemia\.net\b \bbestdissertation\.com\b \bblack-cohosh\.org\b \bcalendaryear\.net\b \bcompartmentsyndrome\.net\b \bcure-tinnitus-guide\.blogspot\.com\b \bddrsdram\.net\b \bendstagekidneydisease\.com\b \bfamilyext\.net\b \bfinancet\.org\b \bfinancialdict\.org\b \bfindchalet\.com\b \bhonestevivere\.com\b \bhyperkalemia\.net\b \binfectiousmononucleosis\.org\b \blupus-erythematosus\.com\b \bmodifiedcarphotos\.com\b \bmotorpix\.com\b \bnintendo-wii-homebrew-unlock-hack\.blogspot\.com\b \boctobercalendar\.net\b \bornithine\.net\b \bparesthesia\.net\b \bpatio-covers\.com\b \bpaudarco\.org\b \bpernicious-anemia\.net\b \bradiculopathy\.net\b \btheubie\.com\b \bthyroidproblems\.org\b \bturmericbenefits\.com\b
\bafricacupofnationshighlights\.blogspot\.com\b \bbestdissertation\.com\b \bbestessay\.org\b \bbestessays\.ca\b \bbestessays\.com\.au\b \bbesttermpaper\.com\b \bcountryguidebook\.com\b \bcustom-essaywriting\.blogspot\.com\b \bdiscussionshome\.com\b \belectronicmusicfree\.com\b \bessaydot\.com\b \bessayontime\.com\b \bessaywriters\.net\b \blifesyrup\.com\b \bmedicanalife\.com\b \bmedicanatv\.com\b \bonline-sport-betting\.org\b \bpsalmtours\.com\b \bresearch-service\.com\b \bresumesplanet\.com\b \brushessay\.com\b \bslots-machines-online\.net\b \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b \bterm-paper-research\.com\b \btt-group\.net\b \bwikipediahatescheerleaders\.blogspot\.com\b
\bcatatansiboyiiii\.blogspot\.com\b \beasyurl\.net\b \bhuaweie220\.com\b \bhuaweie220\.net\b \binmassage\.net\b \bis\.gd\b \bresearch-service\.com\b \bre-shui\.cn\b \bsuperiorpapers\.com\b \btr\.im\b \bvornesitzen\.de\b \bxr\.com\b \byy\.vc\b
--- Barek ( talk • contribs) - 17:10, 7 May 2010 (UTC)
I was wondering if there is some list/reasoning for blacklisted sites that i could view somehow. I recently had requested 1 link to be whitelisted, but would like to see the reasons for its block because the "about" page (and a reading thereafter) doesnt indicate any [obvious] bias. Lihaas ( talk) 07:50, 4 September 2010 (UTC)