Respected Admin, this website techved.com is genuine website and i have personally verified it and have seen that it is reported in spam with btechved\.com\b. Hence my sincere request to you is remove this website from the spam blacklist.It is indeed a genuine website.May be someone might have tried to do some attempts to link this site so that it gets reported into spam.But i have personally visited the office of the website.It is indeed a genuine website.So, request you to remove it from the spam blacklist.
Yours Sincerely, Shamasinkandeer Shamasinkandeer ( talk) 06:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Points Guy, although there is a consensus that content involving credit cards from this website should be avoided, there is a general consensus that other content from this site should not be regarded as generally unusable. Considering that the website was added to the spam blacklist after WP:SILENCE, this should not remain on the blacklist. feminist ( talk) 12:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located.". Note that the site was blacklisted because it performs native advertising, not because (parts of) the site are unreliable. I am not suggesting whitelisting as an interim solution, I am suggesting to use the whitelist requests to see how much of this material is really needed (i.e. which parts can not be avoided since there are no other sources), and leaving the status quo. That is strengthened by the remark that part of the material is 'hell no', and de-listing would also allow that to be used again. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This site provides information on fish keeping, specifically how to care for certain species in an aquarium. It is a site that doesn't make any money from adverts or traffic, it is just a useful resource for those of us who are researching how to best care for a particular fish as each fish requires certain water parameters and care requirements. There is absolutely no reason to blacklist the external links that were added as each link went directly to a relevant page all about that specific fish. Abi Young
{{
BLRequestLink|net-informations.com}}
Spam from rotating IPs going back to 2008 or so, through to today. Touched lots of articles, see IP contribs. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Repeated spam for a real estate site by throwaway accounts and IPs. Multiple warnings and a temporary protection of their main target Delhi Development Authority have been ignored (continued after protection ended). GermanJoe ( talk) 15:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Systematic dead link spam for a marketing site by multiple throwaway accounts. GermanJoe ( talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Bot-like spamming over the past few weeks nine months, both in article namespace, and now, talk page archives.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 19:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
electronicsprojectshub.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 Slow spam. Every few months an IP adds another link. Too infrequent for a block of the two IPs used so far to be effective, too many different pages for semiprotection to be effective. The only question is whether this gets spammed often enough to justify blacklisting. (Something at the top of this page explaining how often a site needs to be spammed to justify filtering would be a huge help. I'm just saying.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Added by blocked Murca-editor17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); fake bad-humor copy of 2020 campaign website. Nate • ( chatter) 06:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to but this is unreliable site used excessively for biographies. There is already a template indicating it is NOT a reliable site and should not be used but people ignore it. It is self-published and either taken from reliable sources (meaning they are available for use) or personal email correspondence by the creator. For example: [www.thepeerage.com/p5150.htm#i51491] The site itself says it is unreliable. It is the bane of many good Wikipedia editors and I'm at my wits' end trying to replace it with sources. It needs to be formally blacklisted so it cannot be continually cited as a source. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up User:Beetstra. User:Wikimandia, over the years I have asked similar questions about this and other sites. I can look the discussions up but it will take a lot of time, and I will only do it if pressed. The short answerer is I do not approve of the proposal. Here is a more detailed explanation.
This is message I posted to user:Vetiverman's talk page diff
Thank you for creating the article John Clinton, 6th Lord Clinton on 14 November 2016. However it is clear that the contents came from Darryl Lund's website thepeerage.com.Lundy's website is not reliable (it is self published by a none expert), but you can use Lund's website as a source providing the information he provides is backed up by a Wikipedia reliable source (some of it isn't it comes from email correspondence and the like).
Unless you have access to his reliable sources, you can not cite his sources directly, instead you must cite his source and then the reliable source. This is explained in more detail in the section in the citations guideline linked to by WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
I have copied edited the article and added in the appropriate style of citations see this edit. If you have added information based on any of Lundy's pages to any other article and have not stated that the information came from his website, please add the appropriate additional citations as specified in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
I ran AWB search a number of years ago (August 2012) and tagged them all at that time (see for example this edit). A search on
Returns lots of pages where the use of Lundy is in my opinion useful as a method of using reliable sources, take Francis Smith, 2nd Viscount Carrington as an example. Without Lundy the page would probably not exist, but can there be a doubt that reliable sources can back up the information? In the long run some editor will have access to Lundy's sources andwill be able to drop the need for Lundy as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.
However Lundy also includes information that is not based on a Wikipedia reliable sources, and I for one am happy to see such text base on unreliable sources removed, see for example the article " Robert Catesby", where Lundy is cited, but Lundy cites "Peter McCallum, 're: Baber Family," e-mail message to Darryl Roger LUNDY (101053), 29 October 2017'", text based on such citations using personal correspondence via email to Lundy ought to be removed along with the citation.
There have been similar debates in the past that I have been involved with about two other web sites.
The general opinion in the case of Rayment site was it is accurate, but it does not cite its sources, so it should be kept. I placed an unreliable template into {{ Rayment}} and its sister templates, but after some years someone objected to that, so some of the Rayment templates contain a unreliable source warning and others do not.
The general opinion on Charles Cawley's website was that it is unreliable when there is not a clear citation, but it is far from clear that this is acceptable because the citation is usually to a primary source (and primary sources that not published, are not acceptable ( WP:PSTS)). Also in may cases and because Cawley site draws inferences from the primary sources, that are acceptable in a reliable secondary source but are a syn (sic) for Wikipedia editors to do. So I created {{ Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley}} which includes the templates "[self-published source][better source needed]"
However having mentioned the "not-so-good" and "the bad", here are some of "the ugly":
Not all of these may be used as citations (they may be in external links). Which brings me to my last point. Yes they need to be tested for use as cited reliable sources (and deleted if they do not meet the requirements), but do we really want to add them to a black list which was never intended to ban this type of web site--unreliable but not harmful--and that might legitimately appear in external links?
-- PBS ( talk) 11:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to request a removal from the blacklist. It appears someone went crazy on the ASMR wikipedia entry page, and began erasing everybodies links and other bits of information. My website is genuine. It is highly relevant to the ASMR wikipedia page as well as a few others. It contains more research intensive information than most other websites. Spam is content that is created without thought, without care, and without attention. Asmrstudio.com is made with care, provides a great deal of attention to the subject matter, and there is significant thought put into the subject matter. The ASMR section that is the web, just so happens to be controversial, so I understand the attention directed towards my website. Please remove it from the spam list. Thank you for your reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.75 ( talk) 18:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jamie. I thought the wikipedia was mine until I read your thoughts on site ownership. I guess I'll stop paying for it. Sincerely.
BTW. You guys banned the Daily Mail? That is elitism. I guess I will IQ test myself and others before I refer them to your academy of higher vets.
Who owns the Daily Mail? Who has the conflict of interest? The readers?
Please reconsider the blacklist removal and reference your own wikipedia page on what is technically spam.
unsolicited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.82 ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and btw. Shame on you guys for this ban -> http://american cocker spaniel.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.79 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is deprecated (not blacklisted) after two highly-attended requests for comment in 2017 and in 2019 that concluded the source is highly questionable. When an editor inserts a link to the Daily Mail into an article, they see a warning message informing them that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and they can choose to either heed the warning or override it by submitting the edit again. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but cherry picking avoids the other issue, such as the definition of spam itself, and there is no spam issue whatsoever.
I think the Daily mail provides it's sources whenever possible. Especially on it's copyrighted image materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.10 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
imdb.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 has probably been discussed before but since folks continue to try to pass it off as a WP:RS on a regular basis, including for things like WP:DOB, I think it's time to put a stop to it.
The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is therefore considered unreliable by the majority of editors. Some have argued that certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, although there is no broad agreement as to whether this constitutes bona fide fact checking, or what portions of the site, if any, should be considered reliable. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
+ others...
Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
channel45news.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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
Repeated violations of the biographies of living persons policy. The provenance of Famous Birthdays's content is highly questionable, and less experienced editors have been inappropriately using this site as a reference for years. This domain is currently on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, but this measure does not adequately address the addition of these inappropriate citations into articles. See WP:RSN § famousbirthdays.com for the current discussion and WP:RSP § Famous Birthdays for past discussions. I don't see a valid use case for this domain (as a reference or as an external link). — Newslinger talk 21:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Repeated, ongoing spamming by SPA socks and dynamic IPs for a student blog (or "EdTech news website" as it calls itself) - see detailed COIBot report for accounts and IPs. No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if camp-x.com has been discussed before. It is the work of Lynn Philip Hodgson, whose books are freely referenced in such articles as Camp X, Casa Loma, George McClellan (police officer)... (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=Lynn+Philip+Hodgson&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1 for more). It seems to have relevant info on these subjects, especially first hand rather than in book refs that are unavailable online, except thru camp-x.com. I endeavoured to Externally link: Camp-X on the Camp-X article and was blocked. Why not allow it?
PS I have no conflict of interest. PPS I have been editing WP for about 12 years yet there are places I find difficult to penetrate like the Blacklist and the whys and wherefores of such decisions. Am I out of line to say that makes a mockery of WPs claims to openness and user friendliness. Am I supposed to trawl the logs of such decisions for each year. Is there an easier way and why can't it come up with the the reason for Blacklisting at the time of editing... Somehow it seems like those intrepid editors that use such sites that cannot be named may be regarded as tainted and suspicious themselves. Speaking for myself, I am trying to improve WP, on my own time and could do without some of the bother. DadaNeem ( talk) 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
By fiddling around with tracked I found this page: /info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2011#camp-x.com_removal which states that:
Defer to Whitelist. This was blocked in December 2009 for spamming by a persistent spammer. The size of the site or who owns it isn't really relevant to the reason for listing. The only article on Wikipedia that would require a link to this site would be Camp X, and for that, you may request that a specific page to be whitelisted. If you want to whitelist just the home page, use www.camp-x.com/index.htm in your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
That's all I can find. My ?s:
DadaNeem ( talk) 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been weeding out uses of this site for months now, and we're down to around 190 instances from what was well over 2000 in January 2018. The site was one of many discussed here, all of which will eventually come in for the same treatment. However, it is still being added and so I find myself going round in circles. - Sitush ( talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Sitush: so that makes the above list? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
Respected Admin, this website techved.com is genuine website and i have personally verified it and have seen that it is reported in spam with btechved\.com\b. Hence my sincere request to you is remove this website from the spam blacklist.It is indeed a genuine website.May be someone might have tried to do some attempts to link this site so that it gets reported into spam.But i have personally visited the office of the website.It is indeed a genuine website.So, request you to remove it from the spam blacklist.
Yours Sincerely, Shamasinkandeer Shamasinkandeer ( talk) 06:27, 3 May 2019 (UTC)
At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Points Guy, although there is a consensus that content involving credit cards from this website should be avoided, there is a general consensus that other content from this site should not be regarded as generally unusable. Considering that the website was added to the spam blacklist after WP:SILENCE, this should not remain on the blacklist. feminist ( talk) 12:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located.". Note that the site was blacklisted because it performs native advertising, not because (parts of) the site are unreliable. I am not suggesting whitelisting as an interim solution, I am suggesting to use the whitelist requests to see how much of this material is really needed (i.e. which parts can not be avoided since there are no other sources), and leaving the status quo. That is strengthened by the remark that part of the material is 'hell no', and de-listing would also allow that to be used again. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
This site provides information on fish keeping, specifically how to care for certain species in an aquarium. It is a site that doesn't make any money from adverts or traffic, it is just a useful resource for those of us who are researching how to best care for a particular fish as each fish requires certain water parameters and care requirements. There is absolutely no reason to blacklist the external links that were added as each link went directly to a relevant page all about that specific fish. Abi Young
{{
BLRequestLink|net-informations.com}}
Spam from rotating IPs going back to 2008 or so, through to today. Touched lots of articles, see IP contribs. - MrOllie ( talk) 16:16, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
Repeated spam for a real estate site by throwaway accounts and IPs. Multiple warnings and a temporary protection of their main target Delhi Development Authority have been ignored (continued after protection ended). GermanJoe ( talk) 15:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)
Systematic dead link spam for a marketing site by multiple throwaway accounts. GermanJoe ( talk) 19:03, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
Bot-like spamming over the past few weeks nine months, both in article namespace, and now, talk page archives.
Suffusion of Yellow (
talk) 19:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)
electronicsprojectshub.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 Slow spam. Every few months an IP adds another link. Too infrequent for a block of the two IPs used so far to be effective, too many different pages for semiprotection to be effective. The only question is whether this gets spammed often enough to justify blacklisting. (Something at the top of this page explaining how often a site needs to be spammed to justify filtering would be a huge help. I'm just saying.) -- Guy Macon ( talk) 13:20, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Added by blocked Murca-editor17 ( talk · contribs · deleted contribs · nuke contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log); fake bad-humor copy of 2020 campaign website. Nate • ( chatter) 06:40, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if this is the right place to but this is unreliable site used excessively for biographies. There is already a template indicating it is NOT a reliable site and should not be used but people ignore it. It is self-published and either taken from reliable sources (meaning they are available for use) or personal email correspondence by the creator. For example: [www.thepeerage.com/p5150.htm#i51491] The site itself says it is unreliable. It is the bane of many good Wikipedia editors and I'm at my wits' end trying to replace it with sources. It needs to be formally blacklisted so it cannot be continually cited as a source. —Мандичка YO 😜 11:59, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up User:Beetstra. User:Wikimandia, over the years I have asked similar questions about this and other sites. I can look the discussions up but it will take a lot of time, and I will only do it if pressed. The short answerer is I do not approve of the proposal. Here is a more detailed explanation.
This is message I posted to user:Vetiverman's talk page diff
Thank you for creating the article John Clinton, 6th Lord Clinton on 14 November 2016. However it is clear that the contents came from Darryl Lund's website thepeerage.com.Lundy's website is not reliable (it is self published by a none expert), but you can use Lund's website as a source providing the information he provides is backed up by a Wikipedia reliable source (some of it isn't it comes from email correspondence and the like).
Unless you have access to his reliable sources, you can not cite his sources directly, instead you must cite his source and then the reliable source. This is explained in more detail in the section in the citations guideline linked to by WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT.
I have copied edited the article and added in the appropriate style of citations see this edit. If you have added information based on any of Lundy's pages to any other article and have not stated that the information came from his website, please add the appropriate additional citations as specified in WP:SAYWHEREYOUGOTIT.
I ran AWB search a number of years ago (August 2012) and tagged them all at that time (see for example this edit). A search on
Returns lots of pages where the use of Lundy is in my opinion useful as a method of using reliable sources, take Francis Smith, 2nd Viscount Carrington as an example. Without Lundy the page would probably not exist, but can there be a doubt that reliable sources can back up the information? In the long run some editor will have access to Lundy's sources andwill be able to drop the need for Lundy as a WP:SAYWHEREYOUREADIT. Wikipedia is a work in progress and it would be a shame to throw the baby out with the bath water.
However Lundy also includes information that is not based on a Wikipedia reliable sources, and I for one am happy to see such text base on unreliable sources removed, see for example the article " Robert Catesby", where Lundy is cited, but Lundy cites "Peter McCallum, 're: Baber Family," e-mail message to Darryl Roger LUNDY (101053), 29 October 2017'", text based on such citations using personal correspondence via email to Lundy ought to be removed along with the citation.
There have been similar debates in the past that I have been involved with about two other web sites.
The general opinion in the case of Rayment site was it is accurate, but it does not cite its sources, so it should be kept. I placed an unreliable template into {{ Rayment}} and its sister templates, but after some years someone objected to that, so some of the Rayment templates contain a unreliable source warning and others do not.
The general opinion on Charles Cawley's website was that it is unreliable when there is not a clear citation, but it is far from clear that this is acceptable because the citation is usually to a primary source (and primary sources that not published, are not acceptable ( WP:PSTS)). Also in may cases and because Cawley site draws inferences from the primary sources, that are acceptable in a reliable secondary source but are a syn (sic) for Wikipedia editors to do. So I created {{ Medieval Lands by Charles Cawley}} which includes the templates "[self-published source][better source needed]"
However having mentioned the "not-so-good" and "the bad", here are some of "the ugly":
Not all of these may be used as citations (they may be in external links). Which brings me to my last point. Yes they need to be tested for use as cited reliable sources (and deleted if they do not meet the requirements), but do we really want to add them to a black list which was never intended to ban this type of web site--unreliable but not harmful--and that might legitimately appear in external links?
-- PBS ( talk) 11:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)
I hope this is the right place to request a removal from the blacklist. It appears someone went crazy on the ASMR wikipedia entry page, and began erasing everybodies links and other bits of information. My website is genuine. It is highly relevant to the ASMR wikipedia page as well as a few others. It contains more research intensive information than most other websites. Spam is content that is created without thought, without care, and without attention. Asmrstudio.com is made with care, provides a great deal of attention to the subject matter, and there is significant thought put into the subject matter. The ASMR section that is the web, just so happens to be controversial, so I understand the attention directed towards my website. Please remove it from the spam list. Thank you for your reconsideration. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.75 ( talk) 18:45, 12 May 2019 (UTC)
Thanks Jamie. I thought the wikipedia was mine until I read your thoughts on site ownership. I guess I'll stop paying for it. Sincerely.
BTW. You guys banned the Daily Mail? That is elitism. I guess I will IQ test myself and others before I refer them to your academy of higher vets.
Who owns the Daily Mail? Who has the conflict of interest? The readers?
Please reconsider the blacklist removal and reference your own wikipedia page on what is technically spam.
unsolicited — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.82 ( talk • contribs) 15:05, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Oh, and btw. Shame on you guys for this ban -> http://american cocker spaniel.info/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.79 ( talk • contribs) 15:31, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
The Daily Mail is deprecated (not blacklisted) after two highly-attended requests for comment in 2017 and in 2019 that concluded the source is highly questionable. When an editor inserts a link to the Daily Mail into an article, they see a warning message informing them that the Daily Mail is not a reliable source, and they can choose to either heed the warning or override it by submitting the edit again. — Newslinger talk 20:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
Thank you, but cherry picking avoids the other issue, such as the definition of spam itself, and there is no spam issue whatsoever.
I think the Daily mail provides it's sources whenever possible. Especially on it's copyrighted image materials. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.19.253.10 ( talk • contribs) 20:39, 14 May 2019 (UTC)
imdb.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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 has probably been discussed before but since folks continue to try to pass it off as a WP:RS on a regular basis, including for things like WP:DOB, I think it's time to put a stop to it.
The content on IMDb is user-generated, and the site is therefore considered unreliable by the majority of editors. Some have argued that certain content on the site is reviewed by staff, although there is no broad agreement as to whether this constitutes bona fide fact checking, or what portions of the site, if any, should be considered reliable. A number of editors have pointed out that IMDb content has been copied from other sites, including Wikipedia, and that there have been a number of notable hoaxes in the past. Toddst1 ( talk) 15:20, 11 May 2019 (UTC)
+ others...
Tgeorgescu ( talk) 12:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
channel45news.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • 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
Repeated violations of the biographies of living persons policy. The provenance of Famous Birthdays's content is highly questionable, and less experienced editors have been inappropriately using this site as a reference for years. This domain is currently on User:XLinkBot/RevertList and User:XLinkBot/RevertReferencesList, but this measure does not adequately address the addition of these inappropriate citations into articles. See WP:RSN § famousbirthdays.com for the current discussion and WP:RSP § Famous Birthdays for past discussions. I don't see a valid use case for this domain (as a reference or as an external link). — Newslinger talk 21:46, 28 May 2019 (UTC)
Repeated, ongoing spamming by SPA socks and dynamic IPs for a student blog (or "EdTech news website" as it calls itself) - see detailed COIBot report for accounts and IPs. No encyclopedic usage. GermanJoe ( talk) 11:50, 29 May 2019 (UTC)
I don't know if camp-x.com has been discussed before. It is the work of Lynn Philip Hodgson, whose books are freely referenced in such articles as Camp X, Casa Loma, George McClellan (police officer)... (see https://en.wikipedia.org/?search=Lynn+Philip+Hodgson&title=Special%3ASearch&go=Go&ns0=1 for more). It seems to have relevant info on these subjects, especially first hand rather than in book refs that are unavailable online, except thru camp-x.com. I endeavoured to Externally link: Camp-X on the Camp-X article and was blocked. Why not allow it?
PS I have no conflict of interest. PPS I have been editing WP for about 12 years yet there are places I find difficult to penetrate like the Blacklist and the whys and wherefores of such decisions. Am I out of line to say that makes a mockery of WPs claims to openness and user friendliness. Am I supposed to trawl the logs of such decisions for each year. Is there an easier way and why can't it come up with the the reason for Blacklisting at the time of editing... Somehow it seems like those intrepid editors that use such sites that cannot be named may be regarded as tainted and suspicious themselves. Speaking for myself, I am trying to improve WP, on my own time and could do without some of the bother. DadaNeem ( talk) 23:27, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
By fiddling around with tracked I found this page: /info/en/?search=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2011#camp-x.com_removal which states that:
Defer to Whitelist. This was blocked in December 2009 for spamming by a persistent spammer. The size of the site or who owns it isn't really relevant to the reason for listing. The only article on Wikipedia that would require a link to this site would be Camp X, and for that, you may request that a specific page to be whitelisted. If you want to whitelist just the home page, use www.camp-x.com/index.htm in your request. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 12 July 2011 (UTC)
That's all I can find. My ?s:
DadaNeem ( talk) 00:33, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
I've been weeding out uses of this site for months now, and we're down to around 190 instances from what was well over 2000 in January 2018. The site was one of many discussed here, all of which will eventually come in for the same treatment. However, it is still being added and so I find myself going round in circles. - Sitush ( talk) 08:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)
@ Sitush: so that makes the above list? -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)