![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs to be updated to show this web site no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 ( talk) 04:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@ BangTheSound:, etc.
If you're trying to add a legitimate url, I apologize for removing it. Wikipedia has trouble with URLs of sites that primarily operate on the dark web. Authoritative sources are hard to come by, so we can only include URLs that are particularly well documented in reliable sources, and err on the side of exclusion if they may be harmful in some way. If you can point to such reliable sources for the url you're looking to add, that's one thing, but again, we need to err on the side of safety and accuracy. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
mnemonic: "Grams enough-y jam dole"
The following sites all confirm this as the correct onion site.
Most are from 2014 so it's a bit stale, but apparently there's no reliable source for any type of shutdown.
@ Mz7:@ Rhododendrites: Is this reliable enough to add as URL? I am not too experienced with the phishing attacks: is having the absent URL (like right now) more enticing than having a present URL, or the other way around? I know it's not our problem, but apparently numerous users have been getting phished. -- Nanite ( talk) 00:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article needs to be updated to show this web site no longer exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.144.213.97 ( talk) 04:29, 28 June 2015 (UTC)
@ BangTheSound:, etc.
If you're trying to add a legitimate url, I apologize for removing it. Wikipedia has trouble with URLs of sites that primarily operate on the dark web. Authoritative sources are hard to come by, so we can only include URLs that are particularly well documented in reliable sources, and err on the side of exclusion if they may be harmful in some way. If you can point to such reliable sources for the url you're looking to add, that's one thing, but again, we need to err on the side of safety and accuracy. Thanks. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:56, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
mnemonic: "Grams enough-y jam dole"
The following sites all confirm this as the correct onion site.
Most are from 2014 so it's a bit stale, but apparently there's no reliable source for any type of shutdown.
@ Mz7:@ Rhododendrites: Is this reliable enough to add as URL? I am not too experienced with the phishing attacks: is having the absent URL (like right now) more enticing than having a present URL, or the other way around? I know it's not our problem, but apparently numerous users have been getting phished. -- Nanite ( talk) 00:03, 25 August 2017 (UTC)