Hi, I saw this template at the top of the Lenny Bruce article as a non-logged-in user [URL has been substituted]. It seems larger than it needs to be for the purpose it serves. Couldn't it simply say "This article may contain spam links. [Details.]" Details would expand to provide further information. The template as it is is not instructive to a non-editor reader, and may cause confusion. -- Oldak Quill 09:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I derive a certain perverse amusement from the fact that this template, which clearly exists to suppress the use of unwelcome links, give singularly great prominence to the unwelcome link(s) it identifies, by putting a big obvious box at the top of the page in which the given links are the most prominent thing the reader sees. This seems markedly counter-productive ! -- Eddy, 84.215.6.238 ( talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If the bot was a human editor who had identified possible spam links and who was not going to sort the issue themselves, they would post on the talk page requesting that other editors solve the problem. I don't see why this bot should be granted a special article template for this purpose. Article templates should be kept to a minimum.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
notability}}
tag. We don't put those on the talk page. The purpose of this tag is to resolve an underlying issue. If that article ever gets vandalized, where the link gets removed, it can not be added back due to the blacklist blocking. The tag is supposed to raise attention to that by having it get added to the whitelist.—
cyberpower
ChatOnline 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Cyberpower, can you point us toward the discussion where others argued for this banner-style notice? I read the bot request, but I don't see it there (in fact I see two editors complaining about the use of a large banner). Maralia ( talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is better as a 'maintenance' tag on the mainpage - it is an issue that needs to be resolved for the page by whitelisting (or de-blacklisting) of the links that are caught by the blacklist. Having (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links on a page is generally not a problem, up to the point that when the link gets removed by a vandal, a simple rollback will reinstate it. However, if the link gets removed and a subsequent (independent) edit is done (by another editor), all an editor can do to remove the vandalism is to break the link, or remove it (or, as I did back in April, emergency whitelist, revert the vandalism (spam in that case), de-whitelist.
I strongly argue that this is an issue that should already have been resolved a long time ago (and preferably at the moment of blacklisting, though sometimes blacklisting one domain has unintended side effects, or not all is cleaned properly or reinstated through undo/rollback), but we had no means of finding out how. I am also afraid that, similar to the situation I describe from back in April, unknowing editors may have removed good links which were accidentally blacklisted in order to be able to revert to an older version or to remove spam/vandalism. Having blacklisted links on a page is causing damage and that should be resolved. The only way of getting that attention is on the page itself, talkpage tags will not get it resolved, and having this tag is not more disruptive than any other maintenance tag on top of the page (whereas for most of the maintenance tags, the problem they alert a user of is not likely going to cause breakage, whereas this is alerting a problem that can have those effects).
I would encourage to make this tag look very much like the other maintenance tags like {{ cleanup}}, maybe with a small drop-down box with more info. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You say that the banner 'shows which rule on what blacklist' is being triggered, but this does not seem to be the case on any of the dozen tagged articles I have checked. The only information given, aside from links to the template itself and the local & global blacklists, is the triggering URL. Can you show me an example of an article where the banner actually explains which blacklist rule was triggered? Currently there are 11 featured articles and 48 good articles (not to mention more than 5,000 others) tagged with this huge banner, but it is difficult to attempt to fix even one. Maralia ( talk) 16:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
reverbnation
" in http://www.reverbnation.com/lindsaylucas).
Amalthea 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
\bpro-(?!speleo).*?\.ru\b
. This is an unreasonable expectation for the average editor.
Maralia (
talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
previously addressed "[To Wikidemon]" - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD this is where we discuss. You have cited a discussion thread that makes no mention of a change to be made here. Adding nobots will make the bot go away, but will not solve the underlying issue that a blacklisted link is present. And I can easily deactivate the nobots compliance by switching force to true on my bot, if it's going to be misused like that. Nobots is for keeping away a bot that shouldn't be there. As the bot is clearly doing what it's supposed to. If there is a bug, like the one just pointed out on my talk page, I will look into, fix, and rerun the bot. Only you, Sammy D and Liamdavies, somewhat, have objections to the bot. Everyone else has basically defended the bot. I'm going to be blunt in this case, but you are being very WP:POINTy by forum shopping, and trying desperately to shut down the bot. You had your chance, for months now, to make a statement at its BRFA. You chose not to, and now it's approved. Do not change the template without discussing here first. I have reverted it to its original state.— cyberpower ChatOnline 23:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the above changes to the template text should be implemented immediately. Particulary #5 as I think it is ridiculous that the bot engages in edit wars. IMO it should be blocked until that behaviour is changed, but pending that, alerting editors to the use of the nobots tag should be a priority.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the discussion below is the agreed upon changes to the template as rendered below. Click on the edit link to see the source for the file. The documentation bit has been removed from this rendering for obvious reasons.— cyberpower ChatOnline 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just fully protected this as a high-risk template. I did not intend for the protection to be an endorsement the current version though. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello For any interested editors, I have opened a discussion suggesting some changes about the operation of this bot and template at WT:RFBA. Please join in if you wish.-- Slp1 ( talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[[Template:Blacklisted-links|request whitelisting]] should be changed to [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|request whitelisting]], that's where the requests are made. Elassint Hi 15:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen this template used on same page, and it seems to list all the "blacklisted" links as *regular, clickable links*, in a box right there at the top of the page, making it more of an *advertisement* for them, than a warning - it's hard to resist temptation to click them. I really can't understand why are they left active and working in the box. Please, at least make them non-clickable, for logic's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.65.20.228 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2016
Greetings. I suppose if the blacklisted link is deleted and replaced with a legitimate link, then we can remove the template from the article. The way the instructions are worded, it may seem impossible to simply remove the template. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The template has been added to this page, but I cannot tell which link is blacklisted. I assume it must be citation [2] https://cshsoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/queensland-cement-and-lime-company.pdf as the other two citations are in hundreds/thousands of articles. However, when I look in the list of locally and global blacklists, I don't find any entry for cshsoc.files.wordpress.com so I don't know what the problem is or how to fix it. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Others are also having the same issue. How do I know which link is black listed in this page? /info/en/?search=Qaidjoher_Ezzuddin Muffizainu ( talk) 10:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not inclusive, and are unnecessarily used in this warning message. Could we reword it to be a bit more inclusive? Some guides on it:
Some ideas on how to reword it:
Arthurfragoso ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)
Hi, I saw this template at the top of the Lenny Bruce article as a non-logged-in user [URL has been substituted]. It seems larger than it needs to be for the purpose it serves. Couldn't it simply say "This article may contain spam links. [Details.]" Details would expand to provide further information. The template as it is is not instructive to a non-editor reader, and may cause confusion. -- Oldak Quill 09:25, 28 August 2013 (UTC)
I derive a certain perverse amusement from the fact that this template, which clearly exists to suppress the use of unwelcome links, give singularly great prominence to the unwelcome link(s) it identifies, by putting a big obvious box at the top of the page in which the given links are the most prominent thing the reader sees. This seems markedly counter-productive ! -- Eddy, 84.215.6.238 ( talk) 18:24, 9 November 2013 (UTC)
If the bot was a human editor who had identified possible spam links and who was not going to sort the issue themselves, they would post on the talk page requesting that other editors solve the problem. I don't see why this bot should be granted a special article template for this purpose. Article templates should be kept to a minimum.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 09:36, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
{{
notability}}
tag. We don't put those on the talk page. The purpose of this tag is to resolve an underlying issue. If that article ever gets vandalized, where the link gets removed, it can not be added back due to the blacklist blocking. The tag is supposed to raise attention to that by having it get added to the whitelist.—
cyberpower
ChatOnline 15:19, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
Cyberpower, can you point us toward the discussion where others argued for this banner-style notice? I read the bot request, but I don't see it there (in fact I see two editors complaining about the use of a large banner). Maralia ( talk) 22:41, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
This is better as a 'maintenance' tag on the mainpage - it is an issue that needs to be resolved for the page by whitelisting (or de-blacklisting) of the links that are caught by the blacklist. Having (rightfully or wrongfully) blacklisted links on a page is generally not a problem, up to the point that when the link gets removed by a vandal, a simple rollback will reinstate it. However, if the link gets removed and a subsequent (independent) edit is done (by another editor), all an editor can do to remove the vandalism is to break the link, or remove it (or, as I did back in April, emergency whitelist, revert the vandalism (spam in that case), de-whitelist.
I strongly argue that this is an issue that should already have been resolved a long time ago (and preferably at the moment of blacklisting, though sometimes blacklisting one domain has unintended side effects, or not all is cleaned properly or reinstated through undo/rollback), but we had no means of finding out how. I am also afraid that, similar to the situation I describe from back in April, unknowing editors may have removed good links which were accidentally blacklisted in order to be able to revert to an older version or to remove spam/vandalism. Having blacklisted links on a page is causing damage and that should be resolved. The only way of getting that attention is on the page itself, talkpage tags will not get it resolved, and having this tag is not more disruptive than any other maintenance tag on top of the page (whereas for most of the maintenance tags, the problem they alert a user of is not likely going to cause breakage, whereas this is alerting a problem that can have those effects).
I would encourage to make this tag look very much like the other maintenance tags like {{ cleanup}}, maybe with a small drop-down box with more info. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 12:15, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
You say that the banner 'shows which rule on what blacklist' is being triggered, but this does not seem to be the case on any of the dozen tagged articles I have checked. The only information given, aside from links to the template itself and the local & global blacklists, is the triggering URL. Can you show me an example of an article where the banner actually explains which blacklist rule was triggered? Currently there are 11 featured articles and 48 good articles (not to mention more than 5,000 others) tagged with this huge banner, but it is difficult to attempt to fix even one. Maralia ( talk) 16:23, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
reverbnation
" in http://www.reverbnation.com/lindsaylucas).
Amalthea 16:54, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
\bpro-(?!speleo).*?\.ru\b
. This is an unreasonable expectation for the average editor.
Maralia (
talk) 17:00, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
previously addressed "[To Wikidemon]" - Wikidemon ( talk) 01:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Per WP:BRD this is where we discuss. You have cited a discussion thread that makes no mention of a change to be made here. Adding nobots will make the bot go away, but will not solve the underlying issue that a blacklisted link is present. And I can easily deactivate the nobots compliance by switching force to true on my bot, if it's going to be misused like that. Nobots is for keeping away a bot that shouldn't be there. As the bot is clearly doing what it's supposed to. If there is a bug, like the one just pointed out on my talk page, I will look into, fix, and rerun the bot. Only you, Sammy D and Liamdavies, somewhat, have objections to the bot. Everyone else has basically defended the bot. I'm going to be blunt in this case, but you are being very WP:POINTy by forum shopping, and trying desperately to shut down the bot. You had your chance, for months now, to make a statement at its BRFA. You chose not to, and now it's approved. Do not change the template without discussing here first. I have reverted it to its original state.— cyberpower ChatOnline 23:48, 8 October 2013 (UTC)
I think the above changes to the template text should be implemented immediately. Particulary #5 as I think it is ridiculous that the bot engages in edit wars. IMO it should be blocked until that behaviour is changed, but pending that, alerting editors to the use of the nobots tag should be a priority.-- Pontificalibus ( talk) 13:28, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
After the discussion below is the agreed upon changes to the template as rendered below. Click on the edit link to see the source for the file. The documentation bit has been removed from this rendering for obvious reasons.— cyberpower ChatOnline 11:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I've just fully protected this as a high-risk template. I did not intend for the protection to be an endorsement the current version though. Mark Arsten ( talk) 01:45, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello For any interested editors, I have opened a discussion suggesting some changes about the operation of this bot and template at WT:RFBA. Please join in if you wish.-- Slp1 ( talk) 18:40, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
[[Template:Blacklisted-links|request whitelisting]] should be changed to [[MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist|request whitelisting]], that's where the requests are made. Elassint Hi 15:59, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
I've seen this template used on same page, and it seems to list all the "blacklisted" links as *regular, clickable links*, in a box right there at the top of the page, making it more of an *advertisement* for them, than a warning - it's hard to resist temptation to click them. I really can't understand why are they left active and working in the box. Please, at least make them non-clickable, for logic's sake. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.65.20.228 ( talk • contribs) 21:30, 2 March 2016
Greetings. I suppose if the blacklisted link is deleted and replaced with a legitimate link, then we can remove the template from the article. The way the instructions are worded, it may seem impossible to simply remove the template. - The Gnome ( talk) 10:23, 9 July 2018 (UTC)
The template has been added to this page, but I cannot tell which link is blacklisted. I assume it must be citation [2] https://cshsoc.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/queensland-cement-and-lime-company.pdf as the other two citations are in hundreds/thousands of articles. However, when I look in the list of locally and global blacklists, I don't find any entry for cshsoc.files.wordpress.com so I don't know what the problem is or how to fix it. Thanks Kerry ( talk) 19:07, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
Others are also having the same issue. How do I know which link is black listed in this page? /info/en/?search=Qaidjoher_Ezzuddin Muffizainu ( talk) 10:08, 11 July 2019 (UTC)
The words "blacklist" and "whitelist" are not inclusive, and are unnecessarily used in this warning message. Could we reword it to be a bit more inclusive? Some guides on it:
Some ideas on how to reword it:
Arthurfragoso ( talk) 21:08, 8 August 2023 (UTC)