If you are having problems with the spam list and aren't a spammer please include a link to the article you are having trouble saving and say which URL (without the leading http part) you are told is blocked. Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist.
For removals because they conflict with a known significant spammer, please include them in the whitelisting desired section so they can be specifically whitelisted later, while still keeping the generic block in place.
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
It would be very useful if only new content was filtered. It's entirely understandable to maintain a spam blacklist, but it's a bit unreasonable to force the removal of pre-existing blacklisted sites, particularly if there are a number of them (perhaps legitimately). This is particularly true concerning URI redirectors (eg TinyURL) as it can take a bit of extra work to figure out the original link.
I'd much rather only be responsible for the content I add.
I agree. It's unreasonable to allow editors to create new content and not be able to save it into an article because of a pre-existing presumed spam link that was there all along. In the absence of the above suggestion, please scan the databases when you add a site to the blacklist and remove the offending links at that time instead of inconveniencing the unsuspecting editors. --JeffW14:50, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Unfortunately I cannot find any of this in the archives. If someone could find the correct archive, or other evidence, please? - Amgine / talkmeta20:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Napster are now encouraging people to spam Wikipedia ([1]), and offering them commission to do so. No need to block the top level of the site. --bainer (talk) 23:01, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
The URL www.armchairgm.com was listed on the Wikipedia page Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Willy on Wheels as an area outside of Wikipedia that Willy on Wheels has vandalized, but when I edited the page, I was forced to remove that URL before I could save the text.
ArmchairGM is also built on the Mediawiki engine and has this spam blacklist referencing it. That seems weird. A website is put on the Spamblacklist when it uses the Spamblacklist? Are we sure this is spam?
www.kapitalism.net
Listing this again, because it was "archived" without discussion, even though two seperate users clearly disagreed with its inclusion on the spam blacklist. [2][3] (Raul654 removes the requests). This site was not spammed. Articles from this site were linked in approximately two articles, and were relevant to the article they were linked to. The user who added the links may or may not have been banned user Lir, but even if it was, the spam blacklist is not intended for "spam that can be dealt with by user blocking or protection of a small number of pages." Not only is this site not spam, nor ever spammed in the first place, it has also become apparent that this spam blacklist may be copied over to new or upgraded MediaWiki installations (I'm not aware of how this works; only that when ED upgraded, the site in question was blocked), thus potentially leading to collateral damage on projects not even run by Wikimedia. I hereby request removal for the above reasons. --Blu Aardvark19:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
With all due respect, Raul, I believe that you are allowing your own personal grudge against Lir to adversely affect your judgement here. The fact is, including this site on the blacklist harms Wikipedia and other Wikimedia projects, but even more than that, it harms projects not even run by Wikimedia. --Blu Aardvark22:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I see no harm here from the fact that we cannot link to a banned user's hate-fest. In point of fact, there is nothing on his site worth linking to, and the only main-space links to that site were added by Lir himself (while evading his ban). On the contrary, having his site on this list removes any incentive for Lir to spam Wikipedia, which was the reason the site was added here in the first place. Frankly, the fact that it is collaterally blocked on other wikis is gratifying and I hope word will get around such to potential spammers that spamming Wikipedia is a Bad Idea. Raul65423:34, 29 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
His site is more than a "hate-fest", although I can grant that one may consider his anti-Wikipedia essay to be. The main space links (two total, not counting the one in Criticism of Wikipedia) may have been made by Lir, granted, although we can't tell that for certain (Lir himself has denied making those edits, although I do grant that, according to his final arbitration case at least, he allegedly has a history of lying). However, two links != spam. Lir did not spam Wikipedia, and as for his incentive to circumvent the ban, that lies in the fact that he believes his ban and his arbitration case to have been handled unfairly. I would argue that the fact that the reason the collateral damage is gratifying would be due to your personal dispute against Lir, of which Wikimedia is not the proper place to carry it out. I believe a nuetral party should review the evidence for "spam", and make a nuetral decision. With all do respect, you are not nuetral. --Blu Aardvark11:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Please delist www.kapitalism.net; it is the home of a page www.kapitalism.net/thoughts/wikipedia.htm "A Criticism of the Wikipedia". I have found this page to be useful, and it is linked from Wikinfo:Critical views of Wikipedia/Link. In the future, I might want to link to it from this Meta Wiki.
The author boasts of evading blocks and adding vandalism on Wikipedia. Even though I do not edit Wikipedia much, I already disagree with some of the criticism. This author should not be editing Wikipedia, and in many cases it would be inappropriate to have a link from Wikipedia to www.kapitalism.net. However, this is a Spam blacklist for all Wikimedia, not only for the English Wikipedia. It should be used against WikiSpam, not against the vandal on www.kapitalism.net. --Kernigh21:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC) (same as Wikipedia:en:User:Kernigh, but I edit Meta more than Wikipedia)Reply
I concur, of course, with the request for removal. This is a spam blacklist, and that site is not being spammed. I do agree in most cases it would be inappropriate to have links to the site, but that is true of tens of thousands of sites on the internet, and so since the links are not being spammed, can and should be dealt with through the normal method (entitled "edit this page"). --Delirium23:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I concur too, with the request for removal. As others have said, this is a spam blacklist. There is no evidence of this site being spammed. — mark✎15:02, 27 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Daniel Brandt's sites
Brandt has redirected all incoming links from Wikipedia to the Wikipedia Review. But the placement of his sites on the spam list has made [4] and [5] nearly impossible to edit. We've already placed nowiki tags around all the links, this should be sufficient. The spam filter in this case isn't preventing spamming, it's preventing editing and discussion. Gamaliel21:00, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I don't fully know what is going on but I do know I tried to remove the comment of banned user Daniel Brandt [comment here] and was unable to due to a spam filter that said blocked user appears to have inserted in the text making it impossible to remove said text and thus giving a launchingpad for a blocked user's comments to avoid deletion, SqueakBox21:14, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It hasn't made it impossible to edit the daniel brandt article, because I removed the links. Whats the problem? Yes there are some pages that are a pain to edit, because these sites were widely spammed on Wikipedia, but it's fairly straight forward to remove the urls. I'll fix the pages you've mentioned. --Gmaxwell22:04, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Yes, and at the same time you removed citations of article sources. Nobody wants to link to the WR, but now we can't even type in the url. The nowiki tag should be sufficient. There is no need for this spam block. Gamaliel02:01, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
A little bit more to reply, Gamaliel.. the links were not blacklisted so much because of their redirected existance on the Brandt article, but because the links also exist on zillions of other Wikipedia pages (mostly namebase). In many of the cases these links were obvious spam, but not all... but now that Brandt had chosen to redirect they are all spam. The spam blacklist only prevents people from external linking, .. which they shouldn't be doing because of the redirects. It does not stop discussion. --Gmaxwell22:21, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is silly. He only redirects from clicks that have wikipedia in the window history. It's easily defeatable my middle-mouse clicking (or open link in new window). It's hardly spam. --70.190.27.10502:44, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Er, it only redirects when users behave in the way that 100% of them normally do, which happens to be the only way that a huge number of users know how to follow a like.. sure.. no big deal. Sure, having dozens and dozens of biography articles link to Wikipedia review isn't spam.. sure.. --Gmaxwell05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Daniel Brandt wants the articles about him to be deleted from Wikipedia. Seeing the censorship of Wikipedia Review, he decided to take advantage of that by redirecting his sites from there (at least when linked from Wikipedia) with an aim for them to be listed on the spam black list, destroying verifiability, and hence moving towards his articles being deleted. He has succeeded in this aim. Finally, Wikipedia are doing what Daniel Brandt wants them to do. This represents a good compromise, and they should remain on the spam black list. You can feel free to link to the various things that Daniel Brandt says on the Wikipedia Review. There is no problem with you doing that. But of course "nobody" wants to link to a "troll site" do they? Blissyu203:21, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Blissyu2, you are banned on enwiki and you'll be banned here as well if you troll related to enwiki here too. Wikipedia doesn't exist to promote your preferred site, so get over it. If our Brandt article can't be supported except by material on Brandt's own sites which he can and will alter at any time, then our article indeed should be deleted. And in any case, we've left the references in for now, although not as external links.--Gmaxwell05:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
"If our Brandt article can't be supported except by material on Brandt's own sites which he can and will alter at any time, then our article indeed should be deleted." - I could not agree more with this statement. Raul65406:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Why do you call this "trolling"? I thought that I was doing precisely what meta was here for - discussion of other projects. And last I checked, Gmaxwell, you were not an administrator on meta. Of course, I wasn't banned for trolling, but let's not get in to that now. Blissyu210:59, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
In internet explorer, use the menu (right click) and open the link in new foreground tab. This also works in Maxthon. This is hardly "spam". Nor is it hard to defeat and can be defeated with the most popular browser. Please remove the block so that the spam control can go after legitimate spam instead of a Daniel Brandt hunt. --Tbeatty01:52, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I think that everyone agrees that Daniel Brandt's sites are not spam. And that, whilst your idea works, the reality is that the vast majority of people who look at a Wikipedia article have never edited an article on Wikipedia, and hence instructions for how to get around the redirection won't help matters much. Daniel Brandt made the redirect so that his sites would be delisted from Wikipedia, with a further aim to have the articles about him deleted from Wikipedia. By adding the sites to the spam black list, Wikipedia are doing what Daniel Brandt wants them to do. And, when you consider how most published biographies work, i.e. with permission from the individuals concerned except when they are a convicted criminal and it is in relation to their criminal behaviour, Wikipedia should have a policy that a person can request for their biography to be deleted, especially in cases of marginal notability. So Wikipedia are doing what they should have done all along, and hopefully this leads to the articles about him being deleted. I think that it was a good thing to add these sites to the spam black list. Blissyu216:03, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I just had to remove a link to his site on the George Ball article, just to get my edit to go through. Can we please just take his site off the damn filter?--Kross07:26, 24 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Let me try. I connected to one of the blacklisted sites with telnet, typed the four bold lines, then typed an empty line.
$ telnet www.scroogle.org 80
Trying 64.251.22.6...
Connected to www.scroogle.org.
Escape character is '^]'.
GET / HTTP/1.1User-Agent: someone typing in telnetReferer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NewtingHost: www.scroogle.org
HTTP/1.1 301 Moved Permanently
Date: Wed, 26 Apr 2006 22:03:09 GMT
Server: Apache/2.0.50 (Fedora)
Location: http://wikipediareview.com/
Content-Length: 235
Content-Type: text/html; charset=iso-8859-1
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//IETF//DTD HTML 2.0//EN">
<html><head>
<title>301 Moved Permanently</title>
</head><body>
<h1>Moved Permanently</h1>
<p>The document has moved <a href="http://wikipediareview.com/">here</a>.</p>
</body></html>
Connection closed by foreign host.
If I use http://en.wikiquote.org as my referer, I get the normal Scroogle page. So links from Wikiquote to Scroogle would still work.
However, this is abuse. I recommend that Scroogle and the others stay on the blacklist for all Wikimedia projects. --Kernigh22:10, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Fisheaters
I'm having problems adding this link,[http://fisheaters dot com/saintsart.html Symbols of the Saints in Art], back to this page, en:Saint symbology. I don't see why it was classed as spam. Evrik19:20, 18 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can't add some discussion to en:Talk:Rosary because it has some discussion about fisheaters and it has one reference to fisheaters dot com and it's not even a hyperlink. The discussion is only about removing the fisheater links so I don't understand why I can add anything to that page. Fjord78906:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
There was no violation of the rules, which were at the time these: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=32525172 Links to specific, relevant pages at the site were added to specific, relevant entries. An edit war ensued when NON-ADMINISTRATORS went about in a pack one night in December, systematically removing any and all links to the site -- right in the middle of an RfC against one of these non-admins, and right in the middle of requests for abritration, by the site owner, regarding the very questions "how many links are too many?" An admin got involved, called the links "linkspam" designed to "promote pageranking," and the site has been on the s*** list informally or formally ever since, with any link ever added before the blacklist came into play being attributed to the site owner (in spite of the fact that the site in question is a non-commercial site that is one-of-a-kind with regard to Catholicism as practiced by the allowances of Ecclesia Dei -- i.e., traditional Catholicism). I think the site should be removed from the blacklist, that it should be allowed to have links like any other informative website (at least on the entry "Traditionalist Catholics"), and that it should stop being smeared by being grouped with the likes of xxxsex.com and viagra.net. I hope an administrator reading this will actually look at the site, look at the rules in play when the (admittedly many) links were added last year, look at the links that had been added last year and see if they were "spammy" or irrelevant, and, finally, get the site off the spamlist.
There was indeed violation of the rules. The site owner edit-warred over the reversion of links (by both administrators and non-administrators, not that it makes any difference), and then rpeeatedly re-inserted them over a period of time often with misleading edit and link summaries. See also the above comment asserting that it is traditional and not traditionalist Catholic content - that is in itself a contentious view, since the traditionalists represent a loose association of adherents of a minor branch of Catholicism dissenting from Vatican II. If the site owner had been anywhere close to reasonable about things there would not have been a problem. en:User:JzG14:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
odyssei.com
Hi all. I was writing an article on w:Witold Dzierżykraj-Morawski a Polish colonel murdered in Mauthausen-Gusen concentration camp, and wanted to add some references. I found that this page: www.odyssei.com/pl/travel-tips/20376.html has got a pretty decent article on the manor in Oporów, but it's blacklisted. Any way to add it anyway? Halibutt21:33, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Support this enquiry. The page has annoying adverts but the info is genuinly useful, and we want to use it in the above article as an inline reference.--24.131.83.23822:11, 19 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
fuelcellmarkets.com
Dear Wiki-administrators,
www.fuelcellmarkets.com is a valid link to appear on [6]. We're not spammers, although we have previously appeared on spam blacklists due to a spam legacy left to us on our IP address. Would be happy to provide any further information or assurances. Please respond? Thanks!
Support removal. The entry on the blacklist is "fuelcellmarkets", and it probably blocks www.fuelcellmarkets.com by accident. --Kernigh19:04, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
www.swiniary.republika.pl
Republika.pl is the biggest Polish free-host and it has tons of valuable information. I have no idea why it is here. Anyway my request concerns www.swiniary.republika.pl - author of this website allowed us to use its content on GFDL license, the problem is we can't even write its adress without warning from spam filter. Vindicator12:08, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Blogcu.com is the largest blog provider in Turkey. There are some spammers (replica watch etc) using this service but we cancel those blogs when they are reported or catched. Blogcu.com is in the spam list. We would be happy if we are removed from the list as soon as possible.
I suggest that we remove www.blogcu.com from the blacklist. If we can find someone who reads Turkish to say that this is a spam site, then we can relist. --Kernigh18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
This section is for the requested removal of specific URLs from within blocked domains.
Big cuestion
How do you write here an application for an URL that the spam guard does not want you to write here ????
=
CARCASSONNE BOARD GAME
Hi there, I was trying to update the article for the Carcassonne board game ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carcassonne_(board_game) ) and it says my link is blacklisted. I wanted to add this page that shows the game tiles, http://ccgildenDOTccDOTfunpicDOTde/home/tippsDOThtml . The page does have a pop-up ad, maybe that is why it is being blocked? Anyway that is a very useful page for Carcassonne players so please let it be on the page. I replaced the .s with DOTs so that the software will stop bugging me about the URL. Thanks =)
=
www.fuelcellmarkets.com
has been blacklisted, as fuelcellmarket is in the blacklist, i'm curious to know why. Fuel Cell Markets is a company set up to aid the commericalisation of fuel cell, hydrogen and sustainable energy technologies. We are primarily here to promote the industry and facilitate commerical growth. We also provide assitiance to anyone in any walk of life who is interested in learning about fuel cells. Why has fuelcellmarket been blacklisted, there are other fuel cell companies and information portals in the links page, we are not spammers or a porn site, i'm confused? it was here that i tried to add the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_cells, many thanks
tinyurl
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
I TRIED to delete "See also /Delete", a dead link, from here on internet explorer and I got a spam filter warning for tinyurl.com:
Spam protection filterFrom Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaJump to: navigation, searchThe page you wanted to save was blocked by the spam filter. This was caused by a link to an external site.
See the spam blacklist on Meta for a full list of blocked sites. If you believe that the spam filter is mistakenly blocking the edit, then please request that it be fixed on the spam blacklist talk page. The following is the section of the page that triggered the filter:
The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://t*nyurl.com
I then tried to complain about it, and I get the same message here!
I think because I was complaining about the message and I copy and pasted http://t*nyurl.com also.
How can people complain about these messages if they cut and paste the messages they are complaining about and the same spam blacklist blocks them from complaining?
I figured out the problem, on the page I was tring to edit was: http:/tiny*rl.com/yt8xt, which was blocking the entire edit.
I would suggest:
Changing the text of the warning screen. Delete the "http://" before the blacklisted webpages, allowing wikiusers to cut and paste their problems here.
Explain on the warning screen that if a user attempts to save an entire page, and if one of the links is a newly blacklisted site, wikipedia will not allow the wikiuser to save it, suggest to the user:
Go back and edit only a small section of the site without the blacklisted link, not the entire page. OR
No - TinyURL (and any other URL shortner/redirect) allows a trivial workaround for the blacklist, so it must (as a matter of necessity) stay on the list. However, it's trivial to fix pages that use it - [14]. Raul65423:43, 13 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
More suggestions about tinyurl
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
In addition to suggestions about how to reword the warning screen, I would like to reemphasize Joema ignored idea:
What about adding a note to the Wikipedia talk pages for w:TinyURL, etc, saying usage in Wiki articles is now deprecated, and starting 6-Feb-2006, edits will fail if a link shortening URL exists anywhere in the article? Joema14:01, 7 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I understand and agree with Raul654's argument, but I think this needs to be handled better.
Change the warning screen (as per my suggestion above) which explains to users better what is going on.
Maybe create a bot to destroy all of the w:TinyURL links, replacing them with a link to a wiki explanation page, explaining how to fix the link? It would be simple: have the bot replace:
The TinyURL article already says that it's blacklisted by Wikimedia (here is the diff where it was added, a week ago). What's the point in putting a similiar message on the talk page, which is less likely to get seen? Raul65416:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I've made this point before, but it's worth repeating: Tinyurl.com is only one of many similar services. (see notlong.com/links) Be prepared for diversification by spammers. --jwalling22:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion
Huh? Why were many unresolved add/remove requests just sent to archive? -- uberpenguin
Being that hte page was very nearly 200 kilobytes mixed in no particular order, I didn't see any way of seperating the resolved from unresolved requests. Also, with two exceptions (Johnleemk's and Eequor's threads) I did not see any threads that had been active in three weeks. Raul65402:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
So nobody would object to me re-adding my request for addition to the list? -- uberpenguin
Yes, please do. Many discussions just get dropped by the original submitter, who doesn't realize that they need to make a case for removal. Sj20:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
What happened to the guideline boxes at the top of the page and sections? In the future are you going to dump everything to /archive? silsor19:13, 8 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Not talk pages, please
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
It's not broken - we simply realized (after the GNAA used URL shortners to link to malware from wikipedia) that URL shortners are a huge security issue and should be terminated on the spot. Yes, this will create transition problems (sorry nobody thought of this when wikipedia was new) but it's better now than later. Raul65421:41, 26 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
This blacklist has caused a great deal of lost data
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I was doing a MAJOR rehaul of the -childbirth- article talk page on Wikipedia. Someone had a blocked list already in the talk page. It was already there, it wasn't stopped that time. I didn't add it. It was not added in my edit. All my edits, which took about 20 minutes to make, were lost. All of them. I clicked 'back' and it was back to the previous version. Normally... when say, someone edits it, it tells you, but it keeps a copy of your changes. Not this time.
Please fix this. It causes great waste of time and frustration on the part of Wikipedian editors. Please contact me with reply...Tyciol08:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)Reply
I used the back arrow on my browser and I did not lose my edits. I replaced the offending ___domain (makeashorterlink\.com) with the target URL. (See diff for details.) --jwalling21:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
Hi there, I'm Elitre from it.wiki. I just found out that snipurl's urls are considered as spam. I just want to say that this choice gives me lots of problems. When searching for copyright's violations, we use Copyscape which generates veeery long urls; we paste these urls in some templates, user page and so on, but they won't work if not "snipped". (Here you should see 266 words matching.) Elitre
As we discussed earlier (check the archive), allowing URL shorteners is an extremely bad idea, as it renders the blacklist totally useless. Link URLs can be put in single brackets like this - [http://www.google.com] - so that the page doesn't look too long. Raul65405:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I added that link to prove that it doesn't work ( you don't get the result you aim at).Elitre
That linking-to-it-while-it-is-on-the-spam-list doesn't work is not in question. The real issue is - should we allow any URL shorteners? And the answer is no - it just creates far too many potential problems. Raul65405:31, 5 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Request for Removal of starswelove.com from the Spam blacklist.
Hi, I am the webmaster of Starswelove.com and was adding a few of my pages to wikipedia, I had added about 3-4 pages when it gave me a 'You site is on the blacklist and you cannot add that url anymore' message page. I am hereby requesting the admin to please remove my site from the spam blacklist. I will greatly appreciate it. Thnx & Warm Regards, Gel.
PS : is there any rule to the number of pages from the same ___domain I can add to wikipedia? I didn't find any info on that when I looked. Thnx!
Update : I had a message from a 'Yamla' today morning explaining why I might have been blacklisted. Thnx for the info. I wasn't aware about it and I am sorry for assuming that commercial or private links [I have seen many of those already added here on wikipedia] could be added. I have spent the better part of the hour trying to understand how the system here works and will try my best to contribute to this wonderful project, staying true to the nature of contributions. I wont be adding any more links to my site, but how do I know that it has been removed from the blacklist? I would really appreciate it if it was. [updated : March 5, 2006; 9:40am; *hotstarrr]
You need to check what I posted
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Nascarspace.com was blacklisted due to a specific admin here having an affiliation with a nascar website. I was told if i wanted to be listed that they could offer me a good advertising deal on another site. Nascarspace is a high quality nascar community with zero advertising on it, strictly a discussion community with schedules and stats. Please reverse this
How to unblock Lexilogos
Latest comment: 19 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion
The reason why Lexilogos is blocked as spam seems to be a bug in wiki software : the entry logos\.com in the blacklist (added 07:18, 5 March 2006 Raul654) blocks all sites finishing by logos. Please (administrators) : either have the bug fixed, or remove logos entry (replacing logos\.com by www\.logos\.com is another way to solve this problem). Thanks. Croquant07:55, 9 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
I replaced a tinyurl link with the target URL and I inserted the Logo turtle graphic. I don't think this was a Lexilogos issue. --jwalling22:38, 12 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello there ! It's time to wake up
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
https* is not equivalent to (http|https), I think you mean https? .
I would do #https?://([a-z0-9_\-.]*\.)*($regexp)(?=(/|$))# to fix the problem that happened with us\.ma and isbe\.ma too. Kotepho16:51, 15 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I cannot save a comment at talk:Prem Rawat and get referred here
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
You need to provide more information. Are you referring to the English page at wikipedia:talk:Prem Rawat or are you using a different language? The English page is being actively edited and looks okay. What did you try to insert? --jwalling19:55, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
muturzikin / nigeria.tz4
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments1 person in discussion
Proposed removal of (sub)page. I don't know how muturzikin got included here. I have no opinion on the site in general, but some subpages are not bad. Someone asked me on my English talk page if it could be removed from the blacklist to enable addition of the link [www.muturzikin.com/carteafrique.htm], which indeed appears to be useful and bona fide.
Proposed addition. In the last months, we've repeatedly had spammers add links to www.nigeria.tz4.com on hundreds of articles related to Nigeria (see this discussion for more details). It would be quite helpful if that site was added to the blacklist. Thanks, — mark✎21:09, 14 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Addition: nigeria.tz4.com redirects to nigeriaplanet.proboards43.com, which has also been added to many Nigeria-related articles. For more discussion, see en:Talk:Lagos. See also the contributions of IP's adding these links: [16], [17]. Please help us save valuable wikitime by adding this one to the blacklist soon. — mark✎08:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Do not delete it.. The problem is MArk, I have problem with mark... Mark is only a lier, he just want to win an argument... the Page in question which link is different, as picture to show user.. But because about four people have argrument with mark.. about the page.. But Mark refuse to accept he loses..
I want Mark to be remove as a Moderator.. He even delete me of the system.... this guy is either mad or sick in the brian, how could four of us be wrong.. check is contribution and find out , How many people tried to correct him... so ignor him and is funny way.. I think he neeed to see a doctor.. That is why , he had even muturzikin on the page... he is sick..
Only of wikipedia and other moderator.. good work on your part.. this is a nice website...
Stop the personal attacks, 69.195.84.54. Also, I have removed your sneaky deletion of the problematic links. Don't do that again. To others: I think this editor is making the case clearer than I could ever hope to do. See also the continued discussion over at :en:Talk:Lagos. Thanks for fixing this soon! — mark✎19:33, 15 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
MArk you have problem.. I notice , you deleted your contribution.. Because it would have prove the type of person you here.
Another URL shortener site
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I don't want debate on who is who and who do this or that, but my site has to be removed from blacklist (www.muturzikin.com). Some people in french want to add my site for kikongo language. My site is full of linguistic maps and been add everywhere as a good site in linguistic matter. I' m sure that some of you, use it. Let the rest of the wikipedia's world decide if this site is good or not for their own article. That's also concerning south american, european and african languages... stop to be selfish. And I repeat again, that I won't add my site myself anywhere but in basque language (euskara) wikipedia.
Muturzikin 19 March 2006
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
If feeling that http should not be blacklist, because they carry wikipedia links back to the original page on wikipedia.. See example.. lagos link. Another thing, most after do not know about wikipedia, so the site help to redirect them to wikipedia..
The problem is that Mr MArk want to win a point, and would do anything to win. even lies.. Is so call after links contain wrong information on africa.. I would ask mr Mr to tell us if he as even been to africa.. As an africa. I know my people well and would be able to state of causes. I would tell you that some of the links Mark place on this pages, show African as fraudster, more of hate links, which is to show black people or Nigeria as thief, who are only interest in your credit card.. I do not do that and so are many africa abroad or in africa. Everyday , americans go to jail for fraud, but mr Mark have not gone to the US section of wikipedia and include picture or links to people american have rob.. If one america is a thief, does that make all america thieves, if it applied to americans, it also applied to Nigeria..
2 Wikipedia is an informative site.. It sell CORRECT information to people, if your site is use by people like mr Mark to sell the wrong information , you are liable under law for deformation of the character against the people of Nigeria and africa as a whole... many site are links to your site, which are external, but i have not see mr mark go after does site.. Which is double stardard under the law.. sub section 18 of the business act.
See en:Talk:Lagos#How can you_have a Place without Picture for a detailed discussion of this link. The argument of the above editor boils down to the following: (1) good images on Nigeria-related articles are a Good Thing; (2) the nigeriaplanet.proboard43 site is a good source for images. Other editors of Nigeria-related articles fully agree with the first point, but consider the second point to be in the wrong because that site, aside from having a few pictures, is full of commercial links. The above editor has been told to upload good pictures to Commons; he has even been offered help in doing so. To repeat, the link mentioned has too much commercial content on it to qualify as a good en:Wikipedia:External link. And for the last time: stop the accusations of racism, you really have picked the wrong person and your attitude doesn't help your case in the least. — mark✎20:19, 19 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
Linguistic maps 2
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion
It seems that Marc Dingmense ignores my messages. I've seen his map contribution and his linguistic maps like this example( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:African_language_families.png )
. I think I found the reason why he blacklists my link and why he doesn't answer to my request to remove my site from it. Compare by yourself ( www.muturzikin.com/carteafrique.htm ) like comparing an encyclopedia and a dictionary. I ask everybody to promote my site for its content and nothing less. No reason that a such site like mine can be blaklisted by Mark Dingmense. Muturzikin 20 March 2006 (UTC)
You would do good to investigate matters somewhat more thorougly before making allegations like this. First, your site has NOT been added to the blacklist by me, in fact I didn't know of this blacklist before your request on my talk page. Second, I have in fact requested for it to be removed: see some sections above this one, where I said the following: Proposed removal of (sub)page.I don't know how muturzikin got included here. I have no opinion on the site in general, but some subpages are not bad. Someone asked me on my English talk page if it could be removed from the blacklist to enable addition of the link [www.muturzikin.com/carteafrique.htm], which indeed appears to be useful and bona fide. Third, if you had watched this page closely over the last few days, you'd see that I was harassed and even got legal threats directed at me by some editor adding links that in fact are spam. I spent some time dealing with that, if you don't mind.
Your allegations are fully out of place here. I once removed a link because it was too generous for the article you added it in, and I explained my doing so on your talk page. I have nothing to do with it being on the blacklist. Please take your words back. — mark✎08:21, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
First, sorry for what I said, but I keep your words for removing my site from blacklist as soon as possible. With a such contribution at wikipedia, it might won't be long for you. Secondly, my allegations turn after a week of silence from you. My site can be removed as a link anytime and everywhere, but blacklisted...no way and no reason. We talking about facts, transbording languages maps, which is useful for thousands people groups. Finaly, I'm sure we both don't want wasting time with this - Muturzikin 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Replied at your english talk page. You don't seem to understand that I cannot do anything about it since I'm not a sysop here. — mark✎18:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)Reply
scully1888.freewebpage.org
I wrote a pretty in-depth guide to ghost sightings in the Ghostwatch DVD and wanted to post a link to it on Ghostwatch's wiki entry, but the link was blocked (no doubt because it's hosted by freewebpage.org).
I would appreciate it if someone could please take scully1888.freewebpage.org off the Blacklist.
xthost.info/alijsh
xthost.info/alijsh/* are not spam. Please remove it from spam list.
deancainwwfl.de.funpic.de
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This is a normal Userpage, which in part lists project activities related to the University of Eichstätt-Ingolstadt, Germany. Could you please take it from the blacklist? Thank you! --141.78.130.1907:18, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
h1.ripway.com
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Why is this on the blacklist?? It's just a hosting site.
If one spammer has his site hosted on RipWay, that doesn't mean everyone on RipWay is a spammer!
Latest comment: 19 years ago13 comments6 people in discussion
WHITELISTING DESIRED
This section is for the requested removal of specific URLs from within blocked domains.
TROUBLE ADDING NEW LINK
I was editing the page for Fission Chicken, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_Chicken , trying to add a new link to a webcomic page at http://www.fissionchicken.com -- but then I got a notice saying the edit could not be saved, because of a (pre-existing) link to .snipurl.com/FissionChicken. But that snipurl link has been valid for a year now. Could this link be whitelisted, so new edits will be saved? Thanks - Klang99 5-27-06
I was editing w:Nexuiz#External Links and had my edits refused because savage747.sa.funpic.de/wiki/pmwiki.php?n=Main.HomePage was one of the links. I checked here and saw that funpic.de was blacklisted, although this specific subdomain is fine.
Criticism of Wikipedia articles
WikipediaReview.com and kapitalism.net should be un-blacklisted. These sites offer legitimate criticism of Wikipedia which is relevant to several articles and to Wikipedia itself. This is an abuse of the spam black list, as it prevents anyone from talking about them, and hence of acknowledging that Wikipedia is anything other than a perfect product. Please can someone with a little common sense remove these links from the spam black list. 59.167.131.807:41, 10 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Censoring a voice doesn't stop it, you know. And your misuse of the spam blacklist to censor criticism only makes you look worse. 59.167.131.820:54, 11 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The link you provide is suggesting to people not to link spam it. Yet you criticise that? I would suggest that you are being extraordinarily abusive, Raul, and that calling it a "troll forum" when at least 3 of its members are prominent critics (Andrew Orlowski, Daniel Brandt, the wiki woo guy) is just laughable. And half of the members are Wikipedia administrators. You are of course upset because the forum has proven that you are an abusive administrator. That, I think, is why you want it black listed. Oh, and obviously the one and only message forum dedicated to criticising Wikipedia belongs in the Criticism of Wikipedia article. Only reason not to have it is if you are trying to censor criticism, trying to pretend that none exists. Or perhaps you'd just like to hide all of your corruption? 59.167.131.816:02, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Raul, have you considered that the person who spammed those links may have done so with the intent to get the site on the blacklist? I recall that, after lir.wikipediareview.com was blacklisted with the caveat that it not be used for spam, some several dozen accounts were used to spam it on w:wikipedia. (These trolls also linked to w:Last Measure in their edit summaries. A checkuser request on those accounts was not fruitful, because it was not completed until the edits had fallen out of the database.) I don't believe that any respected members of the forum were responsible for spamming those links. I do believe that a troll who had read your message thought it would be a good idea to accomplish a goal. --72.160.68.916:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
wikipediareview.com is on-topic when it comes to Criticism of Wikipedia, being the largest discussion board for such criticisms where notable critics like Daniel Brandt have made repeated appearances. I have, in the past, argued for conditional inclusion of the link in the Wikipedia article; the condition being that no editor has a legitimate libel complaint against wikipediareview.com that the site administrators do not act against. Given the site's relatively high level of noise and flaming, I don't have a very strong opinion either way; however, it is not appropriate to address a topical issue through the spam blacklist. The usual consensus discussion mechanisms and user blocking tools should apply. Only if repeated attempts are made to spam this link in clearly unrelated articles, the blacklist becomes a legitimate filtering tool. Even then, I would be concerned whether the spamming is done by the same people running the site, certainly, it should not be easy to get any site blacklisted by spamming it. The blacklist is a very powerful tool that should be used very cautiously, and here I do not find its use justified.--Eloquence18:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
by Eloquence's same logic, lir's kapitalism net would also have to be removed from the spam list, because it was never 'spammed' into any articles, and never placed into any unrelated articles.
— The preceding unsigned comment was added by 134.161.67.125 (talk)
Actually, that link was relevant to the article... It is an episode of Cat Town that Lir directed, being put in to the Cat Town article. Precisely where it belongs. If you think that's spam, you probably think everything is spam. Indeed, everyone else thought it belonged. It was in the article from 14 July 2005 until 9 February 2006, when you deleted it as "spam". If it was spam, it would have been detected a bit earlier. Rather than being spam, it was censorship. Might I advise you, Raul, when trying to make a point, to use more appropriate links, rather than ones that prove you wrong. Blissyu212:22, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree that the link needs a justification: Is there any evidence that this particular fan-made art is notable? There's lots of fan-made art for pretty much anything which we generally do not link to. However, as with WP review, I'm not very fond of using the spam blacklist for this. On the other hand, Lir does have a track record of circumventing every ban placed on him, probably dozens if not hundreds of times, and he is apparently keen to add links to his website to multiple articles. Both are patterns typical of spammers: they do not respect site policy, and their interest is in promoting their own work, rather than improving articles. However, unlike a typical spammer, from what I've seen (there was a list of diffs somewhere), the links were to different pages of vanity stuff on Lir's site, and only in topical articles. So, I'm ambivalent. I'd like to hear what others think. If there are no objections, I think we can remove kapitalism.net for a trial period and see if it is treated in accordance with Wikipedia policy.--Eloquence23:44, 20 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It may well be that his Cat Town animation is non-notable, however it was indisputably not spam. To link to a Cat Town animation in the Cat Town article is wholly appropriate. The spam black list should not be used to win an edit war. Blissyu208:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm trying to customize my monobook with my own background and logo, but h1.ripway.com (the website i'm using) is blocked! Can you please change this? -Crüsäder
wonderfalls.wo.funpic.de
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was trying to edit Wonderfalls and it says this is a blacklisted link, but I don't see anything spammish about the site. I must say that it was annoying that I had to create a wikimedia account in order to follow this up. --JeffW02:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
hefz.he.funpic.de
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was trying to edit Zangberg and it says this is a blacklisted link. funpic.de hosts websites free of charge, but there ist one popup when opening a site from this hoster. Could anyone please remove hefz.he.funpic.de from the blacklist? --hhuber6614:24, 16 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
please delete
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
I wanted to save www.willighp.de/evo/siedlung/erectus.php?PHPSESSID=f22934261bfd58df8ecb57d3778a4e18 <-- this Website and the spam filter said that they detected www.namebase.org and could not save the page. I don't know what this means, but could someone please solve this problem. thanks --84.191.233.14220:30, 17 April 2006 (UTC) (de:SoIssetEben!)Reply
The website you are trying to link to is not blocked. The article that you were trying to edit has a link to www.namebase.org included in it, so any edits made to the page will not succeed until that link is removed. Naconkantarie|t||c|m20:38, 17 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Ivan Stedeford
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
His picture is not loading and seems to be blacklisted for spam!!!
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I was trying to edit the German project site http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Benutzer:Jeanpol/IPK on which there is a link to one of our students project sites. I don't see any danger about this very serious, good website. Could you plaese remove it from the blacklist? Here is the link: panikpansen.pa.funpic.de Sorry, I cannot get logged in the Meta wiki --89.58.42.506:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia Review
Latest comment: 19 years ago9 comments7 people in discussion
I've just added wikipediareview\.com to the blacklist, but not for the normal reasons. I added doubleblue.info a few days ago because it was hosting personal information (name, address, phone number, kids names, etc.) of a contributor, all of which was never revealed on any project. The contributor who was "outed" had to leave Wikipedia because the perpetrators contacted his boss and attempted to have him fired; he was also concerned for the physical safety of his family. The doubleblue site was being spammed on Wikipeida, and the only reasonable course to stopping it was to blacklist it. The site has now removed some of the information, but there is no guarantee that it won't reappear; there is, quite honestly, no honor among thieves, nor internet stalkers.
Either the perpetrators of the doubleblue.info spamming, or some other individual with similar aims, then posted to Wikipedia Review on the subject. The spammers picked up on this, and have linked to the WR post in order to get around the blacklisting of doubleblue. I've posted to WR on the subject, letting them know I've blacklisted it, and agreeing to remove it if they give assurances that WR will remove the site and prevent it from being replaced, and I hope one of them will contact me shortly.
I have no issues with Wikipedia Review, personally; I've posted there several times, and I have always been very upfront with them about my actions. I believe those who know me, and have seen my posts there will recognize that I am being upfront here as well.
May I make a suggestion to the person being harassed (if they are reading this): I suggest they contact their law enforcement agency and find out who is doing this. It's a criminal action. - Ta bu shi da yu03:07, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is Selina (pretty obvious but just want to state it in case people don't realise it's the same one), I just replied to your post: http://geocities.com/randomaccount0890 (redirect to Wikipediareview topic since I can't link to it *rolls eyes*)
You didn't mention at all that they were using it to get around the spam blacklist, you only mentioned that here, so is this deliberate misinformation or what?
Show me where the link to the topic has been spammed and I'll sort it out - I can easily just make referers from Wikipedia to that topic go to http://en.wikipedia.org/ or something instead so people just think it's a broken link.
However, it doesn't seem very logical when you think about it: "there is no guarantee that it won't reappear" is the reason you've stated for having doubleblue on the blacklist and wikipediareview (because it has a topic that links to it (that sounds so ridiculous, doesn't it?)) - but it's just as likely the information will repappear on Wikipedia or elsewhere if the person feels that strongly about it.
However since it *has* been removed, it looks like they've changed their mind or calmed down.
If the information was added back, I would delete links to the site, I definitely don't want to help stalkers. But yeah, there's none of the stuff on the site *anymore* as you say.
Nope, not misinformation, just being in a rush. I find myself a bit busy these days.
Selina, I talked to the guy who was "reported" on the page, quite a few times, and he was literally frightened for his life after what was posted about him; worse than that, he was legitimately afraid for the lives of his children. I've looked it over again, just now, and the offending information has been removed, but I still believe that if they are removed from the blacklist, they will add it again, and will go back to work with thier army of sockpuppets to stalk and harass as many other users as they can. I've interacted with you enough to believe that even with as many problems as you've had on Wikipedia, you don't want to see someone's kids put in danger; even if the people responsible don't act on it, they're making it available and doing everything they can to get someone else to act on it.
For now, I will remove WR from the blacklist; quite obviously, the links to WR have been removed from pages (as blacklisting them prevents page saves until the links are removed) but if you take a look at ANI, you'll see where they were posted. I've never been dishonest with you or anybody else at WR, and I don't intend to start now. EssjayTalk • Contact04:28, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Essjay's behaviour is just the sort of thing that doubleblue is objecting to. The cabal continue to try to suppress facts. And what is being said about KHM03's personal info is not true. I suggest the cabal is investigated and doubleblue given a barnstar for exposing their manipulation of wikipedia for their dangerous ends. 86.137.36.12806:50, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I can personally vouch that what Essay is saying agrees with what KHM03 has told me. I also saw the remark on KHM03's family before it was removed from his talk page. Threats to one's family and career are serious buisiness. 65.121.136.204 08:42, 23 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I don't have a meta account, but you can call me Archola. 65.121.136.20410:52, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Mkay Essjay sorry for perhaps jumping down your throat but it seemed at first more suspicious than it actually was
But yeah, it's silly to target Wikipedia Review when it's quite easy for *anyone* to link to that doubleblue site - in fact by drawing attention to it by mentioning it on the Spam Blacklist you've probably done a lot more harm than good when it seemed a very low-traffic site
In fact after skimming through the referers on Wikipediareview for that topic, it seems people are linking to it from other sites apart from Wikipedia (where it wouldn't matter to direct link to doubleblue, blogs and such commenting on the heavy-handedness -_- --Mistress Selina Kyle09:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
This is a bad strategy. We should not be blacklisting an entire forum site because one forum post contains a bad link!
Latest comment: 19 years ago8 comments7 people in discussion
The Wikitruth site is now being used to disseminate information that has been deleted from en.wikipedia for legal reasons, and there is strong evidence (in the form of recent screen captures showing admin-only screens) that they're doing this via administrator access to that deleted content. Some Wikipedia trolls are starting to advertise Wikitruth as a way to see this content. Blacklisting this URL would probably be, both morally and legally, the right thing to do. --Tony Sidaway|Talk16:39, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Too many people high up seem to want to recreate Wikipedia in their own image, with the Foundation/Jimbo (Jimbo's President for Life of Wikimedia until he dies, after all) seemingly unaware... This is why sites like Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review get created in the first place - they wouldn't exist at all if it were not for the corruption inherent in the system. --Mistress Selina Kyle17:35, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Well, this is a turn up for the books! It's none too often that I agree with Selina. I would like to voice my total opposition to adding Wikitruth to this spam blacklist. Please find another way to disassociate yourself with the site. Of course, if they start spamming, then add them to the list. - Ta bu shi da yu03:04, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'd echo that, particularly now it has been suggested on the record :). Removing the alleged libel is one thing, but if legal action occurred it might be important to show that we'd taken all reasonable steps to ensure that the material was not disseminated further. Perhaps we can't prevent Wikitruth publishing it, but we should prevent any direct links from wikipedia to the material in legal question. (But I am a very rusty lawyer) --Doc glasgow17:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm going to pass along the request to Brad (the foundation's lawyer) and Jurywiki-l. If they thinks it's a good idea to add it to the blacklist, I'll go ahead and list it. Raul65417:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Hello MSK, remember me? Well I just registered on Meta, and I weakly agree with Doc Glasgow, although I suppose this would hurt Wikitruth's Wikipedia article. However, if someone were to sue over deleted content, which is after all authored by Wikipedia, and put there by people who, since some of the editors on Wikitruth are admins, could be seen as 'employees' of the Wikimedia foundation, it would not help to have a link to the content. It is a rather interesting situation, that should probably be carefully considered. Prodegotalk00:17, 26 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I highly commend the concept of pre-emptive censoring using spam tools. It's a total validation of the concept of making information freely disseminable, and really should be a charter plank in Wikipedia's basic policies and platform. Only thing is, I don't think you guys have taken the idea far enough. Really, any entity that might possibly cause legal action, no matter how tenuous a chain of thought it takes to get to that conclusion, should be placed on the spam blacklist as well. For example, we should add the *.gov ___domain to the blacklist; we don't want individuals accidentally linking to a top-secret website. Pass the word along to the other language Wikipedias, too, to do the same with their host countries' government. Microsoft and Apple have shown themselves to be fairly litigious; we should probably add them as well. Anyone who's sued users or sent out cease-and-desist letters over deep-linking to specific web pages within their website; well, we don't want to run the risk of that happening on Wikipedia, so let's add them. Oh, and that brings up a good point. Cease-and-desist letters. We should probably make sure Chilling Effects gets that article deleted, since they reprint cease-and-desist letters; we don't want to be linking to them. And, god, the entire Scientology series of articles really needs to go, for obvious reasons. And, frankly, I'm sure if we opened the discussion, we could think of other possible things to add to the blacklist. Really, guys, great concept, bad implemenation -- we really need to censor things much more than you initially considered. But really, though, good start! I was worried about you guys for a while. 24.148.40.9211:53, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I must protest!
Latest comment: 19 years ago15 comments8 people in discussion
I must protest the addition of Wikitruth with no reference to any discussion on the site! All we have is a brief section where Raul654 has said he's going to take the proposed addition of Wikitruth.info to the spam blacklist. I can't see any reference to this discussion, though of course I may not be looking hard enough.
Please remove Wikitruth from the spam blacklist. It is making it almost impossible to edit the Wikitruth article on Wikipedia. I certainly can't add several sources, which come from the website itself.
I urge the Wikimedia admins (or the WMF, whoever responds first) to remove Wikitruth.info from the spam blacklist.
I'd like to see the legal advise then, as I'd be very interested in what was said from a legal perspective. Blocking a URL is something we should be doing legally?! That seems remarkably spurious. What is Brad Patrick's email address? - Ta bu shi da yu12:55, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The word "tough" comes to mind. The Foundation's decision to block sites from links is absolute, and Brad's job is to give advice to the Board, not to random people who are curious - you don't get Shell's legal department writing a nice note for you setting out why they've stopped selling charcoal briquettes, or whatever. :-)
Considering I have had a reply from Brad, I find your comments quite incredible. I might also point out that not all WMF board members agree with adding Wikitruth to this spam list. "Tough" indeed. - Ta bu shi da yu04:09, 28 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
The question is, was this legal advice to the Board, which the Board has acted on, or just his personal opinion that it would be sensible? Raul himself has commented on en:Talk:Wikitruth that it was NOT a Foundation action. The wub23:44, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I'm not a big fan of it being blacklisted either (especially on the "Spam blacklist"; they weren't spamming). No I don't like what they do, no I don't like what they say, but the blame for how the content got there is with the WMF (content is never (or rarely) literally deleted). There needs to be some new level of deletion added to MediaWiki that only allows people like Danny or Jimbo (or the lawyers) to view or restore items deleted to this level. That would solve a majority of the problems with WikiTruth. —Locke Cole • t • c06:28, 27 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
It's disconcerting to have mediawiki accuse me of being a spammer every time I try to edit my user page. (Wikitruth misattributed a quote to me; I linked to the quote to clarify what it was I was getting mad about. I could take the links off, but then I'd confuse anyone who wasn't already familiar with the whole thing.) Tlogmer 06:02, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Tlogmer06:08, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
I agree. When things like Wikitruth and Wikipedia Review are being added to the spam black list, yet were never once used for spam, and are valid references to several Wikipedia articles, calling this the "spam blacklist" is inappropriate. Some have argued, with regards to Wikitruth, that the issue is one of libel, and to that I agree. However, shouldn't Wikipedia just go outright and sue Wikitruth? That seems like a better option, and less childish than listing it on the spam blacklist. List it on the spam blacklist and you help Wikitruth. Wikipedia should sue them. I am sure that they would win. Its not even debatable really. Is there any hypothetical way that what Wikitruth is doing could be considered to be legal? They are repeating libellous content that was deleted because it was libellous. As for Wikipedia linking to Wikitruth then acting as an assumption that Wikipedia is supporting the libellous statements, this is false. Wikipedia are not liable for the content of third party sources. Just like how Slashdot has never been sued, and indeed never will be sued because of what their posters post about. This is a simple open and shut case.
However, that being said I do agree that Wikitruth should not be linked to from Wikipedia. The reason is pretty similar to what Wikimedia's lawyer has said, because of the libel. Wikipedia should not be seen to be encouraging libel, which they would be doing by linking it.
For this reason, there should be a 2nd list, for "sources that Wikipedia does not want to be affiliated with", and in this list Wikitruth.info should be listed. Alternatively, the "spam blacklist" should be renamed in to something that incorporates the legitimate need to add non-spam links. Doubleblue.info is a similar case as well.
As for Wikipedia Review being added (and removed, at least for now), this is more of a case of Wikipedia not wanting to promote a site which says bad things about it. This is an entirely different kind of issue. Unlike Wikitruth, Wikipedia Review is not doing anything illegal, and are very careful not to break any laws, and Wikipedia will never sue them. Thus it is more of an issue about not wanting to acknowledge criticism. However, so long as Wikipedia publicly states that they acknowledge criticism, with the existence of such articles as en:Criticism of Wikipedia, they need to include sites like WR. They cannot be picky and choosey as to which criticism they are going to like. Criticism is quite simply that - its stuff that you don't want them to say. Does anyone like any criticism? Of course they don't.
Some people have suggested that using Wikipedia Review as a source in articles on Wikipedia is a bad idea. For example, it was used as the place where Daniel Brandt first announced the name of the John Seigenthaler Sr libeller, just before he posted the same information on Slashdot, which in turn was prior to his making his own page about it. If Wikipedia wishes to accurately report about that scenario, they need to acknowledge that source as well. Similarly, Daniel Brandt has chosen to redirect all of his pages when the referrer is Wikipedia straight to Wikipedia Review. They were also prominent with regards to a number of Wikipedia-related disputes, and are also relevant to the Wikitruth and Andrew Orlowski articles.
The argument for not including the site as a reference seems to be because, as a forum, posts can be changed, or altered. Yet we use Slashdot as a source. Why can't we say that, as of this date, this is what it said. All sources on the internet can change. This does not prevent something from being able to be used as a reference. Reliable sources does not mean that a source has to be uneditable.
Of course, if we were to use Wikipedia Review, or Wikitruth, or a similar site, as a source for something like talking about what Quantum mechanics is, then they are not a reliable source. But when what has been said there is backed up by third party sources, they are a reliable source, as is the case with Wikitruth, Daniel Brandt and the Seigenthaler controversy.
Sometimes I think that we forget that the aim of Wikipedia is accuracy. Sometimes we worry too much about trying to look good. Accuracy is more important. 203.122.231.19507:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)Reply
Wikipedia Review was never suggested for the blacklist because it says "bad things about Wikipedia". There are many web sites which say bad things about Wikipedia (including Wikipedia itself), none of which are on the blacklist. Wikipedia Review is notable in that it allows very serious personal attacks against people contributing to Wikipedia. On the old WR board, I saw a thread accusing a Wikipedia admin of perusing the services of a prostitute. In another thread, an Internet shock picture was presented as showing a notable administrator. Yet another thread made fun of an administrator's teeth and personal life.
This has nothing to do with "criticism of Wikipedia". Rather, it is an example of a group of people who will support each other's pubescent and hateful behavior as long as they can somehow relate it to Wikipedia. It is a case of "because I can": "I was banned from Wikipedia, so I will violate all social norms on another website because I can. See if you can stop me now!" Of course Wikipedia Review also contains reasoned, sometimes fair criticism. But it is mingled with very personal attacks. A legitimate reason to blacklist WR (though not necessarily through the spam blacklist) would be a case of very serious libel against a WP user which is not deleted from WR in spite of the user's insistence that it should be. Linking to the site after being informed of such libel could open up Wikipedia to legal liability.
Because nobody has yet come forward with such a request, the link is not on the blacklist. But to present this as somehow being about "criticism of Wikipedia" is highly disingenuous.--Eloquence12:43, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
You are mistaken with regards to the "accusation" of dealing with a prostitute. We quoted and linked to a court hearing in which a prominent Wikipedia administrator was found guilty of soliciting prostitution. And then Wikipedia banned users who posted links to this court case. Perhaps you are just manipulating the situation. So what case of libel is there? I am sorry, but I do not believe that there is one. If you think that there is one, you should report it. Or else feel free to sue Wikipedia Review over it. Wikipedia Review takes legal threats seriously, as they are an important part of being a legally operating body, that functions within the bounds of a law abiding society. 203.122.231.19513:26, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Right. Assuming, for a moment, that the court document is accurate and does indeed refer to the person you're talking about, I fail to see what it has to do with any legitimate "criticism of Wikipedia". I did not say it represented a case of libel.--Eloquence14:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
The issue was that someone was blocked from Wikipedia for presenting it, and then permabanned for presenting a complaint about the admin who blocked them for it. And yes, being unfairly banned like that is a criticism. You can nitpick about things all you like, but that's just not a good example of your point. That was a very legitimate criticism. It was also very relevant to discussion about that particular high ranking administrator, and should have been disclosed on Wikipedia. The details were proven without any doubt whatsoever. I would reprint it here, but of course Wikimedia has already said that they don't want such evidence presented here. 203.122.231.19520:31, 1 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Capitol Hill Blues
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Please add this to the spam list. This is a news site that prints fake news, but dresses it up to look like the real thing. I just caught someone using it as a citation.
Capitol Hill Blue is indeed a terrible site which makes up much of its news. However it isn't spam. If someone is using CHB as a reference, you might want to tell them about how poor the site is and request they cite a more reliable source. But there's no reason to add the site to the spam blacklist. Rhobite04:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Daniel Brandt
Latest comment: 19 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion
Because, for referrers from Wikipedia, they redirect to http://www.wikipediareview.com/ . Whilst they are both affiliated with each other, and hence its still relevant, Wikipedia has taken the view that they don't want to "advertise" for a "non notable" forum. This was an idea of Mistress Selina Kyle, to take advantage of Wikipedia's censoring of Wikipedia Review. Amusingly, it actually worked. 203.122.231.19506:46, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
That's a strange spam blacklist. The home page of Scroogle has been on it for a couple of weeks, and yes, the home page of www.scroogle.org is indeed redirected to Wikipedia Review. But yesterday an editor changed the link in the Wikipedia article on Scroogle, from the home page to www.scroogle.org/cgi-bin/scraper.htm internal page. That one is not redirected -- I purposely did not put a redirect in the cgi-bin directory for any of my sites. But I don't understand how this editor was able to change this link yesterday without getting intercepted by the spam blacklist. Is it because a different form of the Scroogle link existed in the article prior to its listing on the blacklist? (That's the same thing as saying that the list is checked against all NEW domains that show up in an edit of a page.) Or does the blacklist only work on home pages and not deeper pages for that site? Either way, it seems like a strange way to do things. --Daniel Brandt 68.91.252.1618:14, 5 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
The blacklist filters on hostnames. The link could only be added because the blacklist was temporarily out of order.--Eloquence00:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
I am trying to create an archive of entries to Talk:Aztec up through December 31, 2005. However, when I try to save the archive page, the save is blocked by the spam filter complaining of tinyurl.com. I can't find this URL in the Talk Page entries but then again I haven't read every line word-for-word. Perhaps it got into the Talk Page before tinyurl.com was added to the spam filter. Here's the URL in question:
The problem with tinyurl is that it is used as a redirect for other sites. If you can find where the tinurl website redirects to, then you can probably put the redirected link in to the article. Tinyurl has to remain on the spam blacklist, and its unlikely that any exceptions will be made either. 59.167.139.22615:15, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Latest comment: 19 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion
Freehosting server mujweb.cz is too broad to be put on blacklist. It contains many useful pages. For example in cs:Brno there is a link to hantec vocabulary on this server. Current addition to the blacklist affects around 30 pages on Czech Wikipedia (Google search [18]). Please remove it or replace by a more specific string. Thanks. --RuM12:52, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Seconded, a problem on sk:wp, too. It's already commented out on line 1325 as "too broad", then listed again on line 1624. ~~helix8416:12, 6 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Bad regexs causing SpamBlacklist extension to not work
Latest comment: 19 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion
Sorry for adding this to the top, but I've been noticing on my Mediawiki site, which uses this list for blacklisting spam, that since about April 27th the following errors have been appearing on my php.log, and spam stopped getting blocked.
[07-May-2006 12:13:02] PHP Warning: Compilation failed: nothing to repeat at offset 22195
in /var/www/seattlewiki/extensions/SpamBlacklist/SpamBlacklist_body.php on line 150
I think the problem is that there are some entries in this list that start with a *; that is not a valid regex, since * needs to repeat some expression before it (thus the "nothing to repeat").
The offset 22195 above refers to the following regex (followed by some other bad ones):
I think those entres need to be changed to not have a * at the beginning, or to have .* instead.
Thanks, Matiasp20:21, 7 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Posting to the top actually makes your comment less likely to be noticed. Amgine fixed it, but it hadn't propagated to the Wikimedia servers yet, so I tried an earlier version. I now reverted back to Amgine's version, which should be fine.--Eloquence00:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
Still broken. Looking through the history deeper I see a few spurious regexps.
hydrocodone?\.ds4a\.com "hydrocodon\.ds4a\.com" gets no googles, why the optional e?
green-tea?\.netfirms\.com same
buy-viagra-online?\.tripod\.com ditto
club2.blog-city.com should be "club2\.blog-city\.com" or replace the lot with "club\d?\.blog-city\.com"
freesexxx\1.blog-city\.com
freesexxx\2.blog-city\.com
freesexxx\3.blog-city\.com
freesexxx\4.blog-city\.com \1 is a backreference and since there hasn't been a closed group yet the behavior is undefined (it could blow up, silently fail, treat it as empty, throw an error), obviously that isn't what is wanted. "freesexxx1\.blog-city\.com" or "freesexxx\d?\.blog-city\.com"
.sx98\.com possible they wanted the dot, but most likely meant "\.xs98\.com"
they do posts like this:
Excuse for my post but I do not have money to buy meal to my children. Forgive me please.
freeforen.com/wss/host/casino/free_online_casino_games.html
(list of 100s of spam-sites...)
Duplicate
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
An IP insert in several projects a link to www.reinhardheydrich.org. The IP comes from an anon proxi. I blocked the ip in deWP. --ST○08:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
request block on links to hifrienddd.info
Latest comment: 19 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
I'm seing lots of IP's on en adding links to hifrienddd.info to various obscure pages.
I have blocked some of the IP's for being spam-bots, but there seems to be alot of these IP's, see for instance the history of this template. The spam-bot is adding the link if it's not already there, if it is already there it adds an empty line. I have sprotected that particular template, but it seems to just have made the bot pick other pages on en. Please blacklist. Shanes12:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)Reply
