Talk:Spam blacklist
Completed requests are archived.
Proposed additions
|
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section. Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. |
www.gtaw.go.pl www.gtacartel.com www.gtakiller.com gtapoland.com.pl gtametropolis.imro.pl and www.gtareview.com
All those links are poor Polish fansites about Grand Theft Auto video game series. Sites above are too bad to be in Wikipedia. Everytime I was looking at pl:Grand Theft Auto (seria) article, i had to revert those spammers... Heh, let me just give you link to old version of this article: [1]
BTW: There are other sites listed, but I do not listed them here, because I think those sites are good sits about this video game series. Hołek ҉ 10:37, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- They're spamming only a single article? Have you tried to semi-protect it? MaxSem 11:57, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not single they are spamming it in every article which is related to GTA (also in developer and distributor articles). Of course semi-protection works, but somebody after copule of days is taking out blockade, and spammers again are adding their sites. Anyway, this would be positive action for those IPs, who wants to add some text to articles without adding links, because then we would not need to use protection of page (yep, I now my English is bad ;)). Hołek ҉ 10:41, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
sanskrit.ipfox.com
persistent spammer on en-wiki, please see here. en:User:Dbachmann 09:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- that's a throwaway redirecting subdomain; maybe blacklist all of ipfox.com? 130.60.142.151 09:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I accidentally screwed up the most recent edit here in some sort of edit conflict; I think I have subsequently reverted my mistake here corrrectly. Ironically, I was raising a question about the same issue in the "Other discussions" section below. --A. B. 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- A linksearch on en.wiki for *.linkfox.com returns seven possibly valid hits. Please check these before blacklisting. Thanks Naconkantari 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- that's why I changed the subject line to the subdomain. ipfox.com is a redirect service, so if we decide to block the entire ___domain, we can replace the legitimate links with their actual urls. 130.60.142.151 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I ever got my question raised below answered. If all new ipfox.com links get blocked, does that affect the handful of existing legitimate (actually, most are just semi-legitimate) links I have not deleted? Does link blocking automatically delete existing links?--A. B. 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- The blacklist will not delete existing links. If a blacklisted link is already in article, it will have to be removed before the article can be edited further. Naconkantari 16:31, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
- I'm not sure I ever got my question raised below answered. If all new ipfox.com links get blocked, does that affect the handful of existing legitimate (actually, most are just semi-legitimate) links I have not deleted? Does link blocking automatically delete existing links?--A. B. 18:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- that's why I changed the subject line to the subdomain. ipfox.com is a redirect service, so if we decide to block the entire ___domain, we can replace the legitimate links with their actual urls. 130.60.142.151 17:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- A linksearch on en.wiki for *.linkfox.com returns seven possibly valid hits. Please check these before blacklisting. Thanks Naconkantari 15:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I accidentally screwed up the most recent edit here in some sort of edit conflict; I think I have subsequently reverted my mistake here corrrectly. Ironically, I was raising a question about the same issue in the "Other discussions" section below. --A. B. 14:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've replaced all links to *.ipfox.com, so probably we should blacklist it just like tinyurl? MaxSem 15:41, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eh,
Done - since nobody minds. Added the whole \.ipfox\.com. MaxSem 07:39, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
- Eh,
samsloan.com, ishipress.com
Sorry, it's me again. en:User:Sam Sloan is a person with some particularly trenchant opinons, many of which are highly uncomplimentary to various living individuals. More about him at en:Sam Sloan. Following a recent Usenet posting in which Sloan makes clear his intent to push a POV campaign on en:, I reviewed links to his websites and found something over 100. Some were to pages offering his opinion on chess players (which opinions are not always flattering, and are in any case of no proven or widely-acknowledged authority); some were linguistic commentaries, although no evidence is presented that he is considered an authority on these subjects; and a good number were verbatim copies of newspaper reports which should be linked direct to the paper in question or not at all (linking to external copyright violations is not allowed, from my understanding of the relevant policies). A fair example is this: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Sexual_Violence:_Opposing_Viewpoints_%282003%29&diff=prev&oldid=64636306 - the lniked page is a straight copy & paste from the Wall Street Journal, including the copyright statement which it violates. Also the midi file used on many pages is incredibly annoying :o) Just zis Guy, you know? 10:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
ytmnd
Is it possible to restrict *.ytmnd.com with an exception for www.ytmnd.com? I am removing YTMNDs from articles on a daily basis, almost always containing copyvio soundtracks and having no actual relevance to the subject. See this example: [3]. If this is not possible I will keep scanning. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- In that case www.ytmnd.com must be added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. For en-wp you can request it here. Of course if all subdomains really should be blacklisted and are blacklisted. MaxSem 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- We currently have only two YTMNDs blacklisted, unfunnytruth and unfunnysequel. The two problems I'm having right now are (a) insertion of YTMND links into mainstream articles, often these have copyvio soundtracks and in any case it's not like YTMND is Saturday Night Live; and (b) the use of individual YTMNDs as cited sources in articles such as ebaumsworld - these are not admissible as sources, but no matter how often they get removed someone puts them back. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, since there are several highly notable YTMNDs that should be linked to from the YTMND article because of their relevant history to the site as a whole. These include the original YTMND, the Picard YTMND, any YTMND referenced mentioned in the media (and several reliable sources, including CNN and the New York Times, have brought up YTMNDs) and maybe the Bauman Letters Dramatic Reading YTMND. Although I agree that random YTMND insertion into articles is vandalism. Crazyswordsman.
- We already link to the YTMND wiki. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- I disagree, since there are several highly notable YTMNDs that should be linked to from the YTMND article because of their relevant history to the site as a whole. These include the original YTMND, the Picard YTMND, any YTMND referenced mentioned in the media (and several reliable sources, including CNN and the New York Times, have brought up YTMNDs) and maybe the Bauman Letters Dramatic Reading YTMND. Although I agree that random YTMND insertion into articles is vandalism. Crazyswordsman.
- We currently have only two YTMNDs blacklisted, unfunnytruth and unfunnysequel. The two problems I'm having right now are (a) insertion of YTMND links into mainstream articles, often these have copyvio soundtracks and in any case it's not like YTMND is Saturday Night Live; and (b) the use of individual YTMNDs as cited sources in articles such as ebaumsworld - these are not admissible as sources, but no matter how often they get removed someone puts them back. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
Why block theunfunnytruth? I don't understand what would be wrong with it...65.27.211.52 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
gameland-shop.fr
The address of a french shop is added on multiple articles on fr:wikipédia whereas it has not a encyclopaedic value. See for exemple here or here or here. Thank You. 86.72.93.14 10:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC) (fr:user:Markadet)
- Have you tried a temporarily semiprotection of these articles? --M/ 13:10, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
kleeneze-information.co.uk and earningsboost.com
Both websites belonging to independant distributers of the MLM programm en:Kleeneze keep getting added to the article about Kleeneze for recruitment and more importantly searchengine rankings. Semiprotection would only be a temporary measure as these links keep getting added over a long period.-- Agathoclea 08:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Is any other article involved? --M/ 13:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
woundedbird.com
Anon User:69.196.136.37 added this to about a dozen articles with the text:
- There is a small U.S. label which has been reissuing out-of-print albums from the 70s and 80s (and in some cases 90s) - http://www.woundedbird.com/
Obviously, if he brings gum for himself, he must bring enough for everyone... BD2412 T 19:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please provide some diff links to the spamming. Thanks Naconkantari 21:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
freewebs.com/wikipharm/
From Serbian Wikipedia [4]. --Millosh 22:06, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
quotesandpoem.com
A persistent spammer who uses many different accounts, with one edit per account: CameronJK, LucyK1, LorrieL, LisaJK, RubyJ, LouisJ, to name only a few. Links are added to artices about famous people; the site contains only lists of quotes with ads. I removed all the links once before, but they are being re-added. Wmahan 04:54, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
opticsplanet.net
Spammers from this site have been link spamming every article that has a connection with what they sell including: Microscope, Night vision, Binoculars, Streamlight, Surefire, EOTech, Bifocals, Progressive lenses, Pelican (disambiguation), Radar gun, Amateur astronomy, Amateur telescope making. I went on a hunter/killer mission but they will be back. Halfblue
- Done per this and this. Next time please provide diffs or links to contributions. MaxSem 18:00, 5 August 2006 (UTC)
vhofrance.org
Spam on French Wikipedia by this user, now blocked with "indefinite" delay. The problem is that, for the French users, there is a legal risk to edit and save any page containing a link to a revisionist/negationist site, because of a law (existing since 1990). Giving any link to this site could be seen, in a country where the American First amendment doesn't exist, as being promotion of what the site contains. The question is not to know if vhofrance.org has any historical sense or not, but if the French Wikipedians (some of them having no knowledge of the legal risks) have to risk anything when they edit any page where this link can be found. Never forget that Yahoo had, for a few years, a trial in France because of images of Nazis insignias and was condamned... Hégésippe | ±Θ± 01:54, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- So far there's no evidence of spamming outside his account. If other users/IPs start adding it, we'll blacklist this site. MaxSem 06:58, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
factorywhores.com
Spam on en from www.factorywhores.com on odd pages (talkpages for pages like en:Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/W/index.php. We've salted some of the pages we've come across but might as well wipe out the spammers. Thx! Syrthiss 13:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done --M/ 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
ajcarvelli.com
"Casino" spam, several times on it wiki. --M/ 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done (I could not deny to myself) --M/ 14:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
thesexlane.com
Repeated linkspamming on wiki (ex: this -- Fan-1967 18:25, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done. Checked en:, removed one more link. Nasty spam from several accounts. MaxSem 18:43, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
www.inovaflex.com
Persistent anonymous spammer keeps adding links to this company in electronic-test-equipment-related articles such as en:Oscilloscope. No point in blocking IP or placing a warning template, because IP keeps changing. --Heron 18:53, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Could you provide some diffs? MaxSem 19:00, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
skincarecity.com
Linkspamming on en - see [5]. This is a duplicate of bestincosmetics.com, which is already blacklisted. See Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2006/05#bestincosmetics.com. Rhobite 23:23, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
fiero.nl
linkspamming on en - see this set of edits and these, for example. Fan-1967 00:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Shouldn't en:Pennock's Fiero Forum be AfD'd first? MaxSem 06:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Gee, good idea. What a dreadful article. AFD'ed. I'll wait till the AFD concludes, may resubmit this then. Fan-1967 14:29, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done, article didn't survive AfD. MaxSem 13:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
- Wow, you're on top of it. I was just coming back to resubmit the request after the AFD closed. Thanks Fan-1967 13:49, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
KITTENBOOTIE.INFO
Link spamming at Sonikmatter Wiki (Link shows the diffs)
herhairlosshelp.com
Linkspamming the following English wikipedia articles: en:Androgenetic alopecia, en:Baldness, en:Ludwig scale, en:Baldness treatments, en:Hair care, en:Alopecia universalis, and en:Alopecia totalis using dynamic AOL addresses so blocking the spammer is ineffective and impossible. User contributions consist solely of adding the link to the articles.
List of diffs: [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26]
Please block. Neil916 17:20, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
car-catalog.com
Vanity-Linkspamming several English wikipedia articles, concerned with cars. All (afaik) links were added by 88.222.202.10. User contributions consist solely of adding the link to the articles. Additionaly those links are placed in front of the respective company's official product websites (like here and here, which I think is a very importunately way to improve their search engine rankings.
Not done, spam by a single IP, you didn't even warned him (I gave him {{spam}}). Please resubmit if blocks wouldn't help. MaxSem 05:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
members.comteche.com
Spam from a long series of spam accounts on en (en:User:BERNE, en:User:LEBANON). Syrthiss 13:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- This is already present in the blacklist, links added to the Sandbox are being rejected. It may be that on one own user page the check is not done. --M/ 13:24, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Ah, could be. Thanks, I didn't find it in the list when I searched for some reason. :/ Syrthiss 14:58, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
carrotjuice.com and pineapplejuice.com
Repeatedly added to many articles at the english wikipedia by multiple IPs and mulitple usernames who do nothing but add these links. A few examples from today: [27] [28] [29] [30] [31]. Also see discussion at WikiProject Spam — The preceding unsigned comment was added by Deli nk (talk)
qp16.com
Another link into content from thesexlane.com (listed above). Repeated linkspamming into en:Webcam (hist). Also, is it possible to block a specific page? They've also been using webcamhelp.redirectme.net (which redirects to the same content) but we do have other, legitimate links from redirectme.net. Fan-1967 04:09, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
cicb.net
Persistent commercial-website linkspamming to article “de:Interkulturelle Kompetenz”:
22. Apr 2006 (see bottom of diff) –
22. Jun 2006 –
27. Jun 2006 –
11. Jul 2006 –
9. Aug 2006. -- ParaDox 00:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I did put the link to www.cicb.net (german page) as the definition of the topic "intercultural competence" (in German: "Interkulturelle Kompetenz"), as it is mentioned here in Wikipedia, comes from this website (source), as well as from the german "Handbuch Interkulturelle Kompetenz". I'm the author of "Handbuch Interkulturelle Kompetenz" (both volumes) and the founder of the institute "CICB Center of Intercultural Competence". As the external weblink is only mentioned at the Wikipedia-page ("Interkulturelle Kompetenz") and detailed further information to this topic is mentioned at the website (cicb.net - commercial offers are only there at the sub-page "services"), I thought that this information is in the interest of the readers of Wikipedia and would not be perceived as intrusive. If the information which I provided under GDFL here in Wikipedia should not be wished or would be perceived as scientifically not sufficiently researched and as well the link to the sources would not be welcome, it is absolutely ok with me to delete the information to this topic. However, I'm interested in further opinions. Contact: baumer@cicb.net. Name: Thomas Baumer. Wikipedia Username: Mike2000. (10 August 2006)
www.solenoids.com.tw
Multiple ips spamming this site to en:Solenoid. Article is semiprotected so they may move on elsewhere. Syrthiss 14:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
- Some issues arose, waiting for the end of a discussion here. MaxSem 15:07, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
aceshowbiz.com
Per discussion on en at WikiProject Spam [32], this one seems to be added by many IP different addresses. AbsolutDan 01:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
m4l.berlios.de
Spambot using numerous open proxies (en:User:Syrthiss blocked 14 before running out of time) [33], [34], [35], [36], [37], [38], [39], [40], [41], [42], [43], [44], [45], [46], [47], [48]. Plenty more where they came from. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
aspiranten.blogspot.com
Per discussion on de Link spamming (Results of Spezial:Linksearch). --Achates 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
undone due further discussion on de.wikipedia.org -- Achates 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
ad.zanox.com
this is a advertising-company there the person who make the link get money for eack using the link. It was used e.g. in [49] and [50] in de.wikipedia --80.129.6.170 09:56, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
westlord.com
Similar to aceshowbiz.com above. Per discussion on en at WikiProject Spam [51], this one is being added by many separate (but related) IP addresses. AbsolutDan 20:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
List of de:User:Fab
I compiled this list about 2 or 3 years ago when i was hunting a notorious link spamer. All these links look like a bit of content, but none of them are really informative (at least last when i checked them). They are all associated to a group of two or three persons which seem to work together. Main purpose of these sites seem to be the referral links at the bottom of the pages. -- fab 10:04, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
10-layout-rules.com 10-webdesign-regeln.de 10-webmaster-hints.com 10-webmaster-tipps.de ab-nach-sylt.de aquarium-starter.com aquarium-starter.de austen-biographie.de badminton-crashkurs.de badminton-kickstart.com bernhard-grzimek.de bob-marley-fan.de carroll-jabberwocky.de cocktails-machen.de der-pc-hausmeister.de durchmesser.de ebay-ratschlaege.de entspannung-am-pc.de ferrari-page.de finland-traveling.com fotografieren-leichtgemacht.de france-traveling.com franz-revolution.de fried-gedichte.de georgeorwell.de gitarren-kids.de gratissites.de html-collection.com html-sammlung.de internet-chronik.de janullrich-fan.de jayz-fan.de jujutsu-info.de klares.de lecker-sushi.de llcoolj-fan.de madonna-fan.de manson-fan.de more-nintendo.com my-own-summer.de nintendo-chronik.de olympic-games-chronics.com pc-buyers-guide.com pc-kauftipps.de photography-starters.com porsche-page.de privat-versichern-experte.de pur-fan.de reise-nach-wales.de sportwagen-fan.de sportwagenfan.de strat-games-chronics.com strategiespiele-guide.de techno-info.de traveling-italy.com whiskey-fuehrer.de yummi-cocktails.com
Proposed removals
|
|
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals. |
www.acmedias.org
Please remove these site from the black list. They are not spamers. They are a serious association with excellent papers to read. How and why as blacklisted this site ???
russia\.webmatrixhosting\.net
Please remove this site from the black list. It is a trial Microsoft Powered Hosting. It is the one of the few without a mandatary banner for free hosting. By means of the site the many can create his own web page. If someone used it for malicious purposes this is IMHO not the MS fault.
ppstream.com
Site doesn't spam. It's the official site behind wikipedia:PPStream, one of several growing wikipedia:P2PTV applications. Please remove from the list, thank you. Alons 10:59, 6 August 2006 (UTC)
- Not done, article is currently up for deletion. Please come back if the article is kept. Naconkantari 17:16, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
clantemplates.com
Not a spam website and was possibly added by the webmasters from ClanTemplates.de (Which should be added!), an imitator site.
ClanTemplates.de is known for stealing and redistributing the web templates from ClanTemplates(.com), despite the fact it is against ToS/U.
--68.119.120.218 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
ADDITION: ClanTemplates.com is not a spam website and the article for the website has been edited by ClanTemplates.de. ClanTemplates.de has stolen the works of the designers at clantemplates.com and refuses to remove them. This additional action on WiKi, of removing the links and editing the article, and reporting ClanTemplates.com as spam is extremely disturbing and proposterous. If you have any questions regarding the validity of these claims, please feel free to ask the 100,000 members at ClanTemplates.com on where the templates come from. In addition, please see the following page on clantemplates.com where every single template is released one by one by the original author. forums.clantemplates.com/forumdisplay.php?f=13
The article has also always stated that the website is owned by Zesix Interactive. http://www.zesix.com/thenetwork.htm specifically states that the real website is clantemplates.com and not clantemplates.de.
Please remove clantemplates.com from the spam block. We are also requesting the banning of clantemplates.de from WiKi due to the reasons stated above.
Thank you, Vineet C. Founder / General Manager Zesix Interactive
e-dsp.com
Hi, e-dsp.com is in the external links section of Digital Signal Processor. I believe at it was not listed when it was added, but now, it is impossible to add other links. I visited e-dsp.com and cannot see any raison why it is blacklisted. It have tutor and links to free ebooks. I really want to be able to keep this link and add other relevant links.--85.218.2.215 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- I modified the link to be able to edit the page in the maintime, but it will be great if I can put it back someday.--85.218.2.215 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- (www.)e-dsp.com is not a spam link, but http://www.edsp.com is! --Glenn 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- I am talking about www.e-dsp.com not http://www.edsp.com. So, please remove e-dsp.com and add edsp.com--85.218.2.215 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Can you fix those links please ! --85.218.2.215 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
mi-aime-a-ou\.com
I don't see any reason to block this site. One of it's page should be referenced on fr:Joseph Napoléon Sébastien Sarda Garriga Thx for removing :) --Chouchoupette 12:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
- No one wants to remove this ___domain ? --Chouchoupette 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Tarzan link
The following link comes up as blocked
- www.angelfire.com/trek/erbzine3/erbmot14.html
As far as I know the above is an innocuous and useful link about Tarzan.
The blacklist has angelfire.com/trek listed, but in looking through the archives I could not find out why. —MJBurrage • TALK • 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another site:
- www.angelfire.com/trek/proutsy/
- also came up as blocked, though it is a useful site for List of television programs by episode count. I'd like to request that "angelfire.com/trek" be removed, or narrowed down to the specific user in the "trek" neighborhood who was causing problems. --Psiphiorg 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
fisheaters.com and kensmen.com
This site is not spam. It's a traditional Catholic site, criticised by some people here as schismatic, although given Wikipedia's NPOV policy, that's not a judgment for Wikipedia to make. If some people disagree with its content, fine, but that doesn't make it spam.
- Previously denied per evidence at en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
- See Fish Eaters Website's "About This Site" page for their version of the story.
- I'm sure they have a take on it. I was there back in December when the site owner edit-warred prolifically over the removal of the links. Spammer is as spammer does, I say. Also, your request highlights precisely the problem: it is not a traditional Catholic site, it's a Traditionalist Catholic site, representing a minority view within the Catholic Church. And not being SSPX it's a minority of a minority view.
- I also recall them soliciting people on their forum to join the fray - I think /wikipedia.html is a hangover from that time. /wikipedia2.html contains personal attacks and would likely be removed if posted to Wikipedia. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:27, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
- "Edit-warred prolifically"? You mean for that hour in December of 2005 when an editor who did the things described at the URL above did what he did? Personal attacks? It isn't a "personal attack" to call someone a "spammer" because she added "too many" links to her own site back when there was no rule against adding links to one's own site, no rule against the still undefined "too many links," and all while the person linking was trying to have things clarified by administrators? And what's this?: First you bash the site because you believe, wrongly, that it presents a "Vatican II-dissenting view of foo" [52] -- and now you bash it because it isn't SSPX (a priestly fraternity that dissents from Vatican II), but instead, avoids the "politiciking" and is pan-trad and inclusive, which makes its scope larger than that of the SSPX? And what is the problem with wikipedia.html? Are Catholics not supposed to edit Wiki?
- See Fish Eaters Website's "About This Site" page for their version of the story.
Face it; you have a hard-on against this site. Or maybe it's against "papists" in general. [53] Whatever the case, you should step back from this situation and let another admin look at it without you muddying the waters.
- Yes, I mean edit-warred prolifically (for several hours, not one hour) and no, I do not have any more animosity to this site than to any other which has been linkspammed to a hundred or more articles. The site owner was repeatedly informed by several users including admins that what she was doing was wrong, and she continued to do it anyway and she solicited her forum members to come along and join the fray. There is no possibility whatsoever that she was unaware of the problem, as she claims, by the time she was finally blocked, the en:WP:EL and en:WP:SPAM guidelines had been notified more than once in the mean time. I was there at the time, but I was far from being the only one and I was not then an admin so did not block her myself. I am not bashing the site, I am re-stating my settled view that the owner and supporters of this site cannot be trusted not to spam it across the project. It is a personal site, there is no contention that the site is other than a monograph from a person with no objectively verifiable authority as a scholar of Catholicism, and it is my strong opinion that inclusion is more of a problem to the project than exclusion based on many months of removing it from various articles of differing degrees of inappropriateness and with various misleading edit and link summaries. As to asking other people, I am sure you would prefer that we keep asking other people until we get a different answer, but my answer is unlikely to change. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:44, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- The site owner (me) was told by Dominick, the same editor who'd remove links, calling the site a blog in his edit summaries. Now, does that site look like a blog to you? Why should a site owner respect his opinion when he'd lie like that? I could tell you a few other things about a certain editor's dishonesty, but will refrain unless I must.
- I'd asked repeatedly for clarification as to the rules (WP:EL, WP:SPAM), which were QUITE different in December, 2005 than they are now -- there having been no rule against linking to one's own site other than one prohibiting linking "to promote a site" (which wasn't the case here. I pay when people visit my non-com site. There is no personal gain for me here; my goal then, as it is now, is to explain traditional Catholicism to people who want to read about it.). Nor were (are?) there any rules about "too many links" -- besides which, after you'd agreed (not citing any rules) that seven links would not be too many (though far more are OK for EWTN or Catholic Answers, etc.), and that the site could be added to 7 pages, you reneged and blacklisted instead.
- Further, not all the links that were added were added by me. The person who initiated this exchange (pbuh - ha!) is not me, but he obviously wanted to add a link. I have seen this a few times on this page because I check it every other day or so, knowing that you will slander my site if the topic is raised. You won't allow any links to the site? Fine. But I will defend the site if it is lied about.
- The "edit war" you speak of was one night on 21 December 2005 when Dominick, whose level of honesty has already been established, got people to purge the site -- all during Requests for Comment and Arbitration about the very topic. Yes, I "edit-warred" for an angry hour, frustrated with that guy (but why wasn't he accused of "edit-warring" when he'd delete a link, I'd add it back, and he'd remove it again? He wasn't an Admin, and neither were you at the time. From my perspective, a bunch of editors just like me were going after my site, with no rules to back them up.)
- Finally, the site is no more personal than other sites that get linked to all over the place -- but this one is linked to by Latin Mass Magazine, the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, the Revealer, Catholic parishes, Catholic chapels, etc., and so on. Why Dominick can add links to sites like this http://www.stbrigids-kilbirnie.com/Pages/SaintBrigid.html , replacing a link to my site's page on the Rosary with it, and you say nothing -- it's crazy, JzG. Seriously, if you look at the entry for "Rosary" now, you will find the following external links:
- Article "Rosary" in the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica
- Etymology Online's entry for "rosary"
- Lutheran views on the rosary
- Anglican Franciscan Brothers Anglican Rosary
- Eastern Orthodox liturgical practice including repeated prayers
- Hindu Rosary Rudraksha
- How to pray the Rosary from * Legion of Mary website
- Mary of Nazareth in Catholic theology
- http://rosarium-sanctum.blogspot.com/ Blog by two rosary collectors about the many forms of the rosary as both a physical and a religious object
- -- and nothing about the traditional Catholic view. Nothing -- on a page about the ROSARY. Hindus and Anglicans and Lutherans can go on, other people's "personal sites" are fair game, but when it comes to traditional Catholics, different rules are in play. Explain to me just how this is fair. How is having "The Rosary: Mary's Psalter - traditional Catholic view of the Rosary" "POV" while those other links aren't? I can ask this same sort of question for any of the links I added, whether there were "too many" of them or not (a different issue).
- I'd ask again for a fresh-to-this-matter Admin to look into this, and for you and me to forgive, forget, kiss, make up, and start over, but I gave up on that long ago and don't care too much any more (though, sure, it'd be nice). 'Til next time someone tries to add a link and cares enough to mention it at this page, starting the slander anew, take care.
- If you find spam links, then remove them - it's a Wiki, the whole point is that you can edit it. I don't think you have any idea how much time and effort I put into removing spam links from articles - if I saw a blog linked from any article, unless it was the official blog of a person well known for running a blog, then I'd remove it. I do it all the time. But this is missing the point: just as the existence of one bad article doers not justify not deleting another, the existence of one link does not justify the inclusion of another. There is no possible doubt whatsoever that you continued adding links to your site into articles long after you had been warned not to, and why, and more to the point there is no evidence that you have ever contributed content to the encyclopaedia, only links.
- Incidentally, I just visited the en:Rosary article and - surprise, surprise - found that actually your comment above is grossly inaccurate. The links you quote are from the other sites of interest section; we have no less that seventeen links to sites of varying authority describing the Catholic rosary tradition, divided into those with and without the luminous mysteries, including SSPX, who represent the traditionalist Catholic view. This kind of dishonesty, along with your failure to be upfront about being the site owner when making the request, is why I have no confidence that you will not abuse the project if the site is removed from the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 17:14, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- 1) "The existence of one bad article doesn't justify the inclusion of another" -- obviously. But the pages I linked to aren't bad articles, and the fact is you would, for ex., delete pages like this (/customstimeafterepiphany2a.html) while leaving pages like this [54].
- 2) I did not link to anything after I had been warned not to by an Admin because Admins didn't warn me not to; Dominick and you did, and you were not an Admin at the time -- and your "purge" came even as I was seeking clarification from Admins as to what the rules actually were.
- 3) The comment I made above with regard to the Rosary entry was grossly inaccurate, but it was made because I loaded the page, hit "END" on the keyboard to take me to the bottom of it, and copied "links of interest," thinking that was all there was, not scrolling up to see what was above the bottom fold. I was obviously wrong (though it is nice how you'd prefer to chalk it up to "dishonesty" given Wiki's "assume good faith" rule. I assure you, though, that though I may have been careless there, I am not stupid and wouldn't try to pull a fast one like that on ole JzG). I could, though, prove my point elsewhere, such as at the following entries, for ex.:
- Can you tell, by looking at those links, how Western Christendom celerated these times for hundreds and hundreds of years and how traditional Catholics celebrate them now? Is there something about this page (/customs.html) that just doesn't fit in somehow? That detracts from the fine Wiki dining experience? That doesn't give people seeking information about those topics what they want? Does that page contain material that is relevant and of interest but doesn't belong in the actual articles or not?
- 4) When you say that the SSPX represents "the traditionalist Catholic view," you may be incorrect unless you mean only to say that, with regard to the Rosary, their views are representative of those of traditionalist Catholics. That is, the SSPX doesn't "represent 'the' traditionalist Catholic view" of Vatican II, the nature of Christian obedience, etc., as different traditional Catholics have different views of these things. Their view of the Rosary is pretty standard -- as is everything at my site, BTW, the only exception being that I (like the SSPX) am not sedevacantist and some trads are. But even for them, the practices (which is what the links I added were about) are the same, give or take a few changed dates and Missal details.
- 5) I made no request of you, sorry. I didn't add the site to this list, am not adding the site to this list, and will never add the site to this list. My days of trying to work things out are over. I do and will, though, check this page periodically, and will defend my work and myself against slander aimed in our direction.
- You have come here to request the removal of your own site without making it clear up fornt that it is your own site. And you wonder why people don't take your word on trust? I don't know if you've noticed, but I have registered an account, made contributions to the encyclopaedia, gained the trust of the community, been promoted sysop and all without linking my website. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:06, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
No, I did not make a request (note that now you are calling me a liar in addition to calling me a spammer). I am happy for you that you registered an account. I used to have an account, too, and also made lots of contributions to this encyclopedia. But after spending two months debating a certain editor over two sentences, I found the Wiki-editing experience not to my liking, and left. Chacun a son gout. --- A Stranger
- Seems like you did, otherwise why is this in the requests for removal section? Just zis Guy, you know? 08:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently someone tried to add the link but couldn't, and cared enough to bring it up on this page. Not the first time it's happened here. I get asked about it often enough, too, hence the mention on the FAQ. Or maybe he read about it at the blog "The Shrine of the Holy Whapping." Or maybe he saw my FAQ. You'd have to ask him (or her). --- A Stranger
- I'm guessing the original requester, if it was not you, was one of the usual suspects (otherwise why both domains?). It's so hard to tell who you're dealing with when people don't register or give any point of reference. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- There are no "usual suspects"; there is only me. As to why both domains, I don't know, because the Kensmen website isn't blocked, to my knowledge (only the sub-directory /catholic/ with its redirect to Fish Eaters is, if I am thinking right). The Kensmen website is the website of the 43rd Bomb Group and is linked to from the page on General George Kenney, commander of the 5th Army-Air Force in WWII; people have since edited that page, so I am presuming that kensmen.com isn't blocked. The Fish Eaters Website used to sit in a sub-directory of the kensmen webspace. I'd just moved it to its own ___domain and (in all innocence) spent hours updating alllllllll those links (yes, there were a lot!) when that "purge" came. Perhaps the kind soul who wants Fish Eaters unblocked (and to whom I say, thank you -- but flee! save yourself!) looked through some of the old arbitration pages or some such, where, I am pretty sure, both domains were mentioned. Or maybe both domains are blocked and he/she read the block list. Or maybe he followed an old link from a website or blog to that kensmen/catholic subdirectory, got redirected, thought the page he found himself at was cool, tried to add it to Wiki under both URLs, and found he couldn't.
- Anyway, I don't think that registering matters in a case such as mine; accusations of "sock-puppetry" and such all amount to the same thing, especially if one accesses the Net through AOL as I do, with its non-static IPs (I have banned myself at least three times from my own forum because a troll with the same temporary IP as me decided to endow us with posts beseeching us all to praise Satan and such). I think if I ran Wiki, and thank God I don't or I'd be much more insane than I already am, I'd have an e-mail confirmation system in place so crap like this would be at least partly nipped from the get-go. Alas.
- The chances that the anon who made the request just happened to want to add the old ___domain as well are pretty remote. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that it happened, it seems to me that the probability is exactly 1. Maybe the person who made the request will read all this and set the record straight. -- Though come to think of it, what would have been wrong if it had been me (which it wasn't)? Don't webmasters have the "right" (as it were) to ask that their sites be reviewed and de-listed? --- A Stranger
- Not without saying who they are, no. It's slyness and half-truths which caused the problem in the first place. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:50, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- In that it happened, it seems to me that the probability is exactly 1. Maybe the person who made the request will read all this and set the record straight. -- Though come to think of it, what would have been wrong if it had been me (which it wasn't)? Don't webmasters have the "right" (as it were) to ask that their sites be reviewed and de-listed? --- A Stranger
- The chances that the anon who made the request just happened to want to add the old ___domain as well are pretty remote. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:10, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Whatever. Makes one wonder why anonymous editing is allowed in the first place. But I am still not the person who made the request. --- A Stranger
- I'm guessing the original requester, if it was not you, was one of the usual suspects (otherwise why both domains?). It's so hard to tell who you're dealing with when people don't register or give any point of reference. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:27, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Apparently someone tried to add the link but couldn't, and cared enough to bring it up on this page. Not the first time it's happened here. I get asked about it often enough, too, hence the mention on the FAQ. Or maybe he read about it at the blog "The Shrine of the Holy Whapping." Or maybe he saw my FAQ. You'd have to ask him (or her). --- A Stranger
Alas, the person who made this request (I mean, one of those "usual suspects") seems to have disappeared. Another lucky break for the F.E. Website! But I, the site owner, will return to defend my site when someone tries to add a link and is told half-truths or (undoubtedly inadvertent) untruths -- whether that happens here, on this Spam Blacklist page (as has happened a few times before), or on Talk Pages (e.g., [55] [56], etc.). And it will happen again, because contrary to JzG's opinions, the site is informative, useful, well-liked by trads and non-trads alike, and relevant to scores of Wiki entries.
P.S. JzG, just to clarify something: in order to get an accurate account of site traffic, you'd have to factor in the forum, which sits on its own server. Stats for the last few months:
- Month Views/Day Views
- April 16,136 484,101
- May 14,412 446,791
- June 13,627 408,811
- July 14,381 445,823
Yeah, it's not as big as, for example, Catholic Answer's forum -- not even close (and probably never will be if any time someone Googles "F*** E*****" he finds out, via Wiki, how spammy and awful my site is [57], and hears the lie from DMoz how my site is "SSPX" and "Not in Communion with Rome" [58]. The "Internet Gatekeepers" just luv me! And, no, DMoz won't fix their error either. And you want to know the kicker? After politely asking them twice to move the site into a proper category and being refused, I kvetch about the problem at my forum -- and a LOT of people wrote to them, so I get accused of -- wait for it: SPAMMING! It's about hilarious, really.). But, anyway, it only makes sense that a forum for a trad site wouldn't be as large as one that is more "mainstream," has tons of money behind it, and has no problems from "the Gatekeepers." I'd make a temporary password and allow you to look for yourself since you apparently don't believe anything I say, but I tried that before when you publicly accused the site of getting most of its referrals from Wikipedia. When I said you were wrong and that I would allow a Wiki Admin to log in to the site's control panel and see for himself, there was no response. It's always nice when all means of defense are shot down.
P.P.S. Also, just for the record, with regard to this "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" thing: I said to you months ago that I didn't care if the site were labelled "traditionalist" (even though most trads much more commonly use the word "traditional").
P.P.P.S. Also note that User Clinkophonist in the second example above of Talk Page dissing of this site mentions only the kensmen.com ___domain, and long after the move to the new ___domain, which happened just at the time of "the purge." Maybe that is the explanation: someone came across an old diff, went to that URL to see what was removed, got redirected to the FE site, liked what he saw, and tried to add either URL back in only to find he couldn't.
At any rate, to paraphrase Capra, the above sort of frustrating madness is "Why I Fight." I've worked too hard to have it all flushed away by a handful of powerful people who can't be bothered to give a damn enough to slow down and LOOK. Man, I am sick of being on the defensive and sounding like a whiny baby. Oh well. Until the next time this topic pops up around here... Pax Christi. --- A Stranger
- So what you're saying is that you are absolutely determined that Wikipedia should play a part in promoting your site. Thanks for clearing that up. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:46, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care too much whether Wiki unblocks or not. I mean, I do care, but am sure as heck not going to fight for it; I gave up long ago on the idea of someone actually reading and "getting" my side of the story about the "too many links" and brief "edit war," and then allowing things to start fresh. What I DO care about is not having Wiki SLAM my site. You want to deprive readers of links to some of the best, balanced, non-politicized information about traditional Catholicism -- such information having historical value even aside from its value in explaining one religious group's approach to things? Even if such a "voice" is given to other religious groups? Even if any such link is, per your opinion, labelled "traditionalist" (in spite of the fact that most trads use the word "traditional")? Fine, and, frankly, probably for the best in that if the site were unblocked and anyone were to add a link and call it "traditional" it'd come down on me anyway. But there's no need to go on about this "spammer" stuff, those accusations of "dissenting from Vatican II," and other such things in the process. People read those remarks, JzG, and it hurts my site and "forces" me (as it were) to spend time defending myself rather than doing what I love to do: teach and write and post at my forum and drink gin fizzes while listening to Beethoven with my most lovely cat. I hear about this matter in e-mail, I've seen it here and in Talk Pages, the matter was blogged about at one of THE most popular Catholic blogs out there [59] -- and it just sucks. --- A Stranger
- Your judgment on the issue of whether these are the best links is not impartial. Blogs are not sources. And so on. For somoene who is not going to fight, you sure do fight... Just zis Guy, you know? 14:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think your judgment is impartial, as far as that goes. Now, blogs aren't sources of what? My site isn't a blog (the URL just above is to the blog "The Shrine of the Holy Whapping," and was offered as an example of how the sorts of accusations mentioned above negatively affect my site). As to fighting, what I've said (at least twice now) is that I won't fight to get the site de-listed. I will most definitely fight slander hurled against it and me when the topic is brought up by others, such as it was here. --- A Stranger
- I have been told many times by people I have prevented form violating policy thatg I bear irrational grudges against them. The fact of not having previously encountered them seems to be unpersuasive as far as they are concerned... I think the fundamental problem here is that you have never actually accpeted that (a) what you did was problematic or (b) you or your site have any bias whatsoever. 81.86.153.161 20:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- Well, I don't think your judgment is impartial, as far as that goes. Now, blogs aren't sources of what? My site isn't a blog (the URL just above is to the blog "The Shrine of the Holy Whapping," and was offered as an example of how the sorts of accusations mentioned above negatively affect my site). As to fighting, what I've said (at least twice now) is that I won't fight to get the site de-listed. I will most definitely fight slander hurled against it and me when the topic is brought up by others, such as it was here. --- A Stranger
- Your judgment on the issue of whether these are the best links is not impartial. Blogs are not sources. And so on. For somoene who is not going to fight, you sure do fight... Just zis Guy, you know? 14:09, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
- I don't care too much whether Wiki unblocks or not. I mean, I do care, but am sure as heck not going to fight for it; I gave up long ago on the idea of someone actually reading and "getting" my side of the story about the "too many links" and brief "edit war," and then allowing things to start fresh. What I DO care about is not having Wiki SLAM my site. You want to deprive readers of links to some of the best, balanced, non-politicized information about traditional Catholicism -- such information having historical value even aside from its value in explaining one religious group's approach to things? Even if such a "voice" is given to other religious groups? Even if any such link is, per your opinion, labelled "traditionalist" (in spite of the fact that most trads use the word "traditional")? Fine, and, frankly, probably for the best in that if the site were unblocked and anyone were to add a link and call it "traditional" it'd come down on me anyway. But there's no need to go on about this "spammer" stuff, those accusations of "dissenting from Vatican II," and other such things in the process. People read those remarks, JzG, and it hurts my site and "forces" me (as it were) to spend time defending myself rather than doing what I love to do: teach and write and post at my forum and drink gin fizzes while listening to Beethoven with my most lovely cat. I hear about this matter in e-mail, I've seen it here and in Talk Pages, the matter was blogged about at one of THE most popular Catholic blogs out there [59] -- and it just sucks. --- A Stranger
- Then perhaps you can explain what rules were in place in 2005 which I went on to "problematically" break, 'cause the Admins at the time couldn't seem to find any. Are there rules now in place that would make doing what I did against the rules? Yes, there are. But any sane rule of law doesn't operate on an ex post facto basis. "Biased"? Of course my site is biased; it's a Catholic site, and if one wants to read about traditional Catholic practices, it's the place to go. With no apologies whatsoever, I fail to give equal time to Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Satanist practices, just as Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Satanist sites don't give equal time to what traditional Catholics do. If I were to do otherwise, I'd have a "Religions Of the World" site, and not a Catholic site, and, as a Catholic, I don't want to have a "Religions of the World" site. I am sure this is still legal. Now, if there is a rule against linking to clearly labeled "biased sites," you might want to visit the entry for "Chabad" [60]: I don't see any links to traditional Catholic sites there. I don't even see any Muslim links there, and there are a lot more Muslims than there are traditional Catholics. I do see plenty of links to biased Chabad sites. If you go to the entry "Niddah," [61] you can find a link to Chabad opinion there (not clearly labeled Chabad, BTW, which is a minority Jewish approach), and even a link to "women's reflections" on the topic. Hey, there's another unmarked link to that Chabad site at the entry "Mikvah" [62], and another one at B'Nai Mitzvah (this one has "chabad.org" listed after it, though) [63]. Here's another similar entry [64], and another [65], and another [66], and another [67], and another [68], and another [69], and another [70]. I could go on for a while. See Google 254 returns for "site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ chabad.org" [71]. Now, what is wrong with those links, on those pages, to that Chabad site (other than that they should be clearly labeled "Lubavitcher" or "Chabad" or some such)? Are they irrelevant? "Biased"? Is that "too many links"? Will Chabad be publicly accused of "spamming"? Maybe of being a "prolific spammer"? Will Chabad be blacklisted? --- A Stranger
- Once again, you were told repeatedly that linking to your own site should be avoided, but even after being told this you edit-warred using your own account at the time, using anonymous addresses, and by proxy through solicitations in your forum. The historical position has nothing to do with it, your behaviour in edit-warring over links to your own site is what is relevant. You claim to have added content, but there is no evidence of your ever having added anythign of substance beyond links to your own site. You appear to be arguing that because some linkspam exists, no linkspam may be removed - the fallacy of this argument is self evident. Finally, you assert once again the term traditional Catholic. Actually by strong consensus we use the term traditionalist Catholic because the word traditional is potentially misleading, implying as it does the continuing tradition of Catholicism rather than the actuality, which is a small splinter group. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:27, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
- Then perhaps you can explain what rules were in place in 2005 which I went on to "problematically" break, 'cause the Admins at the time couldn't seem to find any. Are there rules now in place that would make doing what I did against the rules? Yes, there are. But any sane rule of law doesn't operate on an ex post facto basis. "Biased"? Of course my site is biased; it's a Catholic site, and if one wants to read about traditional Catholic practices, it's the place to go. With no apologies whatsoever, I fail to give equal time to Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Satanist practices, just as Muslim, Jewish, Wiccan, or Satanist sites don't give equal time to what traditional Catholics do. If I were to do otherwise, I'd have a "Religions Of the World" site, and not a Catholic site, and, as a Catholic, I don't want to have a "Religions of the World" site. I am sure this is still legal. Now, if there is a rule against linking to clearly labeled "biased sites," you might want to visit the entry for "Chabad" [60]: I don't see any links to traditional Catholic sites there. I don't even see any Muslim links there, and there are a lot more Muslims than there are traditional Catholics. I do see plenty of links to biased Chabad sites. If you go to the entry "Niddah," [61] you can find a link to Chabad opinion there (not clearly labeled Chabad, BTW, which is a minority Jewish approach), and even a link to "women's reflections" on the topic. Hey, there's another unmarked link to that Chabad site at the entry "Mikvah" [62], and another one at B'Nai Mitzvah (this one has "chabad.org" listed after it, though) [63]. Here's another similar entry [64], and another [65], and another [66], and another [67], and another [68], and another [69], and another [70]. I could go on for a while. See Google 254 returns for "site:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ chabad.org" [71]. Now, what is wrong with those links, on those pages, to that Chabad site (other than that they should be clearly labeled "Lubavitcher" or "Chabad" or some such)? Are they irrelevant? "Biased"? Is that "too many links"? Will Chabad be publicly accused of "spamming"? Maybe of being a "prolific spammer"? Will Chabad be blacklisted? --- A Stranger
Once again, I was told by Dominick, whom I don't trust as far as I can throw him, and, after being told such by this abuser of the truth -- rather, after I was accused of being a "linkspammer" -- I asked Admins repeatedly for clarification about the rules, only to not receive any. Clue #1 that I had no idea I was breaking any rules is that I filed an RfC against Dominick, listing allllllll the "too many" links he'd removed. If I'd thought I had been breaking any rules, would I have done that -- producing the evidence of my great crime for all to see (they really should bring back the firing squads)? Man!
I didn't ask anyone at my forum to "edit war," said "war" lasting for an hour or so on 21 December 2005 and having been started by Dominick (who'd remove links to my site and call it a "blog" in the edit summaries), and said "war" coming just after I'd spent hours innocently updating all the links following the move to a new ___domain. I was extremely frustrated, if you couldn't tell, at having those hours of work wasted (almost ALL of them being links to individual, relevant pages of my site, not to the index page), of being accused of "linkspamming" when no one could tell me what rules were being broken, and of having Dominick, of all people, initiating it all. I did invite trads at my forum to help write the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry, way before any of this "spam" stuff came up, and I also have a page on my site called "Trads! Take Back the Net!" which encourages Catholics to let their voices be heard on the internet, including Wikipedia (/evangelize.html -- the "rules" of which I break around here since Wiki brings out the ugly side of me, another reason for me to stay away from editing). It is a sub-page off of THAT page whence wikipedia.html comes, BTW. But there was no "Hey, Traddie Cabal and Gang of Usual Suspects, let's linkspam Wiki! Let's edit war and stuff! Today, Wiki; tomorrow, the world!" nonsense.
If you think I added no content, then you haven't gone through the entry "Traditionalist Catholic," nor have you looked through its associated Talk Pages. Adding content -- rather, trying to add content but having to debate with Dominick instead about what the meaning of "is" is -- is pretty much all I did for a few months of my life which I will never get back. Months debating a person who wrote such gems as "One definition is best without referral to a yet unwritten article is required." But then, what can one expect from someone who'd say proudly on his user page: "I often like to look at NPOV-challenged articles, where secondary activist sources imagine they are primary players, to make pronouncements which are not factual"? It's been changed, finally, but that Freudian admission sat there for months -- even after I put a little "And how!" after it to bring its non-sensical nature to his attention. What a sad waste of my time and, to use a Catholic expression, an "occasion of sin" to have gotten involved in editing; I am way too much of a smart-mouth when irritated by sheer stupidity to deal with the Wiki M.O. That's just me, to each his own.
I am not making the argument that because some linkspam exists, no linkspam may be removed; that would be fallacious. I am pointing out that enforcement of the rules are not consistent, and I do believe my site is being treated especially badly: because JzG doesn't like it; because he doesn't seem to "get" the initial premise that I did not know I was breaking any rules -- a premise from which everything else follows with regard to my actions; because he, admittedly, rarely changes his mind once someone is on his Bad Guy List; and, because he works hard around here and does much good, his opinion is often taken as holy writ in this place. Frankly, I don't see what is wrong with the Chabad.org links on relevant entries; people who want to read about the laws of Niddah would quite likely be interested in what the Lubavitchers have to say about it. I think if Wiki Admins worried more about relevancy and information rather than numbers of links, it would be a better encyclopedia and undoubtedly easier to administrate. IMO, each entry should stand by itself: do the links at a given entry make sense? Do they add or detract? Are any redundant? If so, which is the better/best? Are they helpful? Are they properly labelled? Do they contain information that is useful but which doesn't belong in the article itself? If the information belongs in the article but is presently lacking, should the links stand until such information is added? And so on. The obssession about some webmaster somewhere benefitting seems pretty childish -- no, very petty -- to me.
And, finally, "traditional Catholic" is the term most trads use. That's just the way it is, though, once again, I'd also said a number of times that I wouldn't care if the links were labeled "traditionalist" with that -ist ending since your opinion is that using "traditional" rather than "traditionalist" is "misleading" somehow, even in spite of Google search returns that indicate "traditional" is much more common. --- A Stranger
- As ever, this is a partial version of the truth. You were told be Dominick and by other editors and by adnmins, and you kept doing it after you were blocked. Small wonder I won't take your word. The consensus re traditional/traditionalist is not from me, it's from the relevant article. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
By other editors who were brought in by Dominick, yes. No Admins -- until the block came, at least not that I was aware of (Admins should have something indicating their status next to their names so one can know when one is being told something by an admin rather than by "mere users").
Yes, sad to say, during the brief "edit war" of 21 December 2005, I did continue on reverting despite a block (brought on how and why? Because I was being accused of breaking the 3-Revert rule while Dominick, who was reverting all over the place wasn't?). Quite frankly, I was half-nuts that night seeing what was going on, watching hours of work being stripped away, and not having any one at all listen to what I had to say or even have the decency to point out the rule that I allegedly broke in the first place (which they couldn't do because it didn't exist at the time). Proud of my frustration that led a loss of control culminating in the infamous "edit war" during that hour or so on 21 December 2005? No. It's quite embarrassing, in fact. But in that the average felon in the U.S. serves 2 1/4 years, the continued going-on about it and beating me up over a frantic hour or so, born of frustration and fatigue, is rather vicious.
The consensus -- consisting of the opinions of non-trads who outnumber trads (many of whom are excluded from such consensus-building anyway since any trad who is a memmber of my site's forum is considered one of the "usual suspects," a "meat-puppet," a "sock-puppet," or some other sort of eeeevil minion under my control -- ha!) -- about "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" with regard to an entry that was first named "traditional Catholic" and which retained that name for a few years until about the time Dominick came along -- is neither here nor there with regard to any links to my site. I'd already said that I wouldn't have cared if they were labelled "traditionalist." I do resent the implication that labelling any link to my site as "traditional" is "misleading" when "traditional" is the most commonly used word among trads and acc. to Google (in fact, the full name of my site is, in fact, F*** E*****: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism." The people who show up know what they're looking for. --- A Stranger
- In terms of informing you of policy there is no difference between admins and any other editor. Admins can block and protect, but if you are told by any number of editors that somethign is wrong the best course is to at least acknowledge the possibility they are right. What you are suggesting is that you will only accept informaiton from those who have the power to block you if you don't listen - this is probably another reason you ended up in trouble. The issue of traditional / traditionalist is dealt with in en:Traditionalist Catholic and its talk page; of course trads portray themselves as followers of the true Catholic tradition, it would be remarkable if they didn't, but that doesn't mean that they re right to assert that traditional Catholic menas traditinalist Catholic, as there are plenty of small-t traditional Catholics who are not dissenters. Not that this is the place to rehash that debate, but it does once again illustrate that you are coming at this from a particular (minority) point of view. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:42, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I am a traditional Catholic (or "traditionalist Catholic" if you prefer); our views are minority views, just as the views of Lubavitchers and Anglicans and Muslims are minority views. Nonetheless, the views and practices of traditional Catholics are just as relevant as those of Chabad or Anglicans or Muslims or other religious groups which have links everywhere. The question of "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" with regard to links to my site is entirely moot, as I've already said (four times during the course of this little exchange alone, neverminding my having said it numerous times months ago) that I wouldn't have cared whether the links were labelled "traditionalist." I sought clarification from Admins as to what the rules were; I got no answers. If I hadn't considered the possibility that what Dominick (who proved himself to be, er, careless with the truth) said was accurate, I wouldn't have asked. --- A Stranger
1lisokoo.org
please remove it!
- Any particular reason why? Naconkantari 02:40, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
alphaworks.ibm.com
This page is a portal to many very useful free downloads. --Gerry Ashton 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
Troubleshooting and problems
|
|
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above). |
cragratstheatre.com
Per this discussion, may I please get cragrats changed to cragrats\. to allow the above-referenced site? TIA. RadioKirk (u|t|c) 23:27, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
- Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:13, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
- Much appreciated. :) RadioKirk (u|t|c) 13:29, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
index(233|242|343|634|127|764|453|159|838|365|609|382)\.html
What's the purpose of this entry? If it is to block links like http://www.example.com/index233.html it doesn't work. Bo Lindbergh 12:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for showing that it doesn't work. I've removed it for now. Naconkantari 16:47, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Other discussions
Nový Bor
Spam filter preventing edit because 'www.mujweb.cz'. I think exception should be made for that specific url in the article, as it is relevant to it. --89.176.12.140 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
- Please list the full ___domain so it can be added to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I can't edit this article because of a "spam-filter". --84.174.168.48 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please petition an administrator to add the ___domain mujweb.cz to your local whitelist. More information can be found at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Naconkantari 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
Should be removed
These sites are no longe redirecting, and keeping them on the spam blacklist only serves to frustrate any editors trying to improve the pages that link to these sites: namebase.org, wikipedia-watch.org, google-watch.org, cia-on-campus.org, scroogle.org, yahoo-watch.org 69.149.107.54 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
- Agreed, please remove them. -128.189.174.66 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Etienne.navarro)
Feedback wanted before I add a number of links to this list
I'm fairly new to the English-language Wikipedia. I found someone in a block of Canadian IP addresses adding seemingly benign links to Wikipedia, however, when I checked them out, they all had the same links to the same commercial sites at the bottom of the pages. It looks like spamdexing to me. I made a list of the offending IP addresses and affected sites, but did not bother recording the links themselves. Someone just made me aware of this site -- before I spend an hour or two adding these links, I'd like to know that I'm not doing something that will get reversed. For more background information, see:
- en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive117#Link-spamming from someone in the IP address block 64.228.225.xxx
- en:Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive118#Update -- now using Borgengruft?
- en:User:A. B./To do list#Abusers
Is this an appropriate use of this list? Thanks, --A. B. 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
bypassing the blacklist
Hi, I found a bypass using ‌ - ‌ / ‍ / ‍ might work too. I used the bypass in good faith as the links seemed legit to me. I wanted to add the worldnetdaily.com link at the bottom. The automatic block active due to the already present acmedias.org links prevented that. Probably the links were added before acmedias.org became blacklisted. Don't spank me... --Tickle me 17:01, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
- I've checked and this only works on certain browsers. I'll have more information later. Naconkantari 22:02, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
- If it helps, I just tried it with my browsers. It "works" on FireFox 1.5.0.6 and IE 6.0 sp1 (6.0.2800.1106). AbsolutDan 00:06, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
tinyurl
Why is tinyurl.com on this list? It's useful for condensing table-breaking references in Wikipedia. --207.207.127.233 16:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Sites like these can be used to link to other blacklisted sites, or sites that contain viruses. Naconkantari 20:27, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
- Another way to shrink the column width is to use the syntax:
- [very-long-url-here short description with spaces that may wrap]
- That reduces the need for short URLs in Wikipedia articles. --Psiphiorg 21:45, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
forumco.com
I was under the impression that this was still being discussed - In particular I was awaiting the evidence that the whole ___domain was being spammed here at wikipedia Or is it just another example of this 194.46.167.198 17:49, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
- It should be worked now, see [72]. Korg + + 18:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
File:Chanov.jpg on en:wiki
I tried to add the picture's description to the photo yet it's impossible because the filter appeared for no reason. I,m not going to observe how the case continues, so if averything is all right just add the description: "Roma ghetto in the city of Chanov, Czech Republic"
- Done, added "http://www.sweb.cz/whitewoman/chanov/gallery.htm" to the spam-whitelist. Naconkantari 21:23, 2 August 2006 (UTC)