MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2014

= Proposed additions =

metsol.com


Clear-cut advertising campaign of company and their products into 6 articles. IP warned on talk page before. Has been going on for nearly two months now. Seem to have no intention to stop. - DVdm (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's just that one IP, who appears to have stopped., please poke me for a block if the spam recommences. MER-C 12:54, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =

lyricsmode.com
lyricsmode.com is an licensed site. It has a valid license for displaying song lyrics. It supports 2000+ publishers. LyricsMode is a website dedicated to the explanations and interpretation of lyrics. It contains unique user-generated content about song facts.
 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

Five years ago LyricsMode asked users to add links for lyrics in Wikipedia. All the URLs about that stopped working and mentions removed five years ago in the same month.
 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."


 * . There are so many alternatives for lyrics already that aren't blacklisted. Also, Wikipedia does not need links to user-generated content. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests removal from the blacklist, we will consider the request further. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 17 April 2014 (UTC)

loksabha-2014.com
The sire was recently added and, to the bes tof my knowledge , did not go through an RSN discussion for it. Neither has it been used for spam purposeds on the current event article of the election. It should first be discussed at RSN as the avenue for disputing sourcing credibility via consensual discussionLihaas (talk) 14:23, 13 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ This is not an RS issue; the link (along with numerous other related sites) were blacklisted following this report. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:06, 13 April 2014 (UTC)

avoiceformen.com


This news-blog is heavily involved in gender political discourse and serves as a kind of "anti-jezebel", with counter-point articles for both traditional conservative (tradcon) and feminist narratives. While their article style is "in your face" and often "colorful", they still provide factually accurate information (again, jezebel-esque -- jezebel is not on the blacklist).

Wikipedia has an article on this site, and It's only reasonable that I be able to cite the content of this site to provide both evidence for and against both criticism and the site's own self-definition. Further, the site is one of the highest-trafficked examples of websites related to the "men's rights movement" and provides valuable articles which would be useful to articles on wikipedia related to this subject. Finally, certain articles on this website provide an alternative to the viewpoint advanced by feminists, and thus provide valuable material for the "criticism" section of feminist-related articles.

There is an excellent article I've come across on this site which relates to virtually all articles mentioning feminism and traditional conservative family values, entitled "breaking the pendulum: tradcons vs feminists", which really should be included in the discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure how this site ended up on the blacklist in the first place, as the only people claiming it to be illegitimate are groups affiliated with the feminism they routinely criticize, and their criticisms of the site as a "hate site" don't hold water:
 * 1) they routinely cite and advertise for former N.O.W. board member Dr. Warren Farrell
 * 2) Half the contributing staff are female, including Erin Pizzey, founder of the first battered women's shelters.
 * 3) Of the male half of the contributors, tremendous diversity is present, including authors from LGBT and various racial minorities.

Assuming I can get this site removed from the blacklist, I can contact the managing editors for information necessary to assemble a properly populated summary of the site's contributors, history, etc. I will also be able to provide properly cited quotes I've encountered in both support and contradiction of the site's stated goals, the site's critics, and the site's defenders.


 * Please do yourself a favor and look at the archives before making a request here. Not a single thing written above is a valid reason for de-listing. to white-list specific pages for use as references but bear in mind that WP:PRIMARYSOURCES might be a reason to decline the request there too. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Do we have an archived justification for this site's placement on the spam blacklist? In a community purporting to be centered on freedom of expression what should be justified is the placement of something on a blacklist.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 15.227.185.75 (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, the abuse is clearly visible in the diffs that led to its blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Look, there are numerous discussions about this site. I agree it contains some good information, but the baseline is that it is an advocacy site that has been abused (including threats to continue, which they actually did with blacklist evasion).  We repeat this de-listing discussions over and over (and over), the baseline is the same: there is only very limited use, and the site was abused in the past.  The way forward is to make a case, on a link-by-link basis, of why that specific link is needed for a specific article - if that case can be made, then that specific link can be whitelisted ( - the outcome every time for this discussion) for that specific use - it is the hurdle one should make for every addition, is this worthy of inclusion - this simply enforces people to make that case.  This site is just useful on a good handful of pages out of the millions we have, and it is easily something the whitelist can handle.  Blacklisting protects the abuse of this link on pages where it is completely inappropriate (the type of abuse that led to the blacklisting).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:08, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

airbusmilitary.com

 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

airbusmilitary.com is an official site of Airbus Group, formerly EADS. It's used in articles about the company and its products.


 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."

This was apparently added in error, as it is not part of the -technology dot com group of websites.

-- BilCat (talk) 19:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Confirmed, . MER-C 13:02, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

absolute-weightloss.com

 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

absolute-weightloss.com contain a lot of useful information on nutrition, exercise and musculation.


 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."

As I understand, my website is blacklist just because the word "Weightloss" is in it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.176.149.223 (talk) 05:54, 4 April 2014‎ (UTC)
 * ❌ We don't remove entries at the request of site owners. Furthermore, it's not blacklisted locally, it's blacklisted at Meta. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)

reemclothing.com

 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

reemclothing.com is a limited business which can offer useful style and fashion advise through it's blog. The word "reem" is also a trademark of the company and is used on the a TV show.


 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."

As I could make out the site was blacklisted in 2008 (all it says is \breemclothing\.com\b) []with no explanation as to why it was blacklisted, so I don't understand why it was added.

-- User:Royallyrochelle|Royallyrochelle 09:22, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Was on of many links spammed by spam-only accounts (see User_talk:194.106.39.165). Furthermore, blogs are rarely reliable sources, and usually only consider requests from regular editors. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:08, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

www.10bet.com


How can the site be useful The website is used in articles about the company and its products. Also, Re-adding 10bet.com will help people who are searching for information about the company to find it more easily.

Why it should not be blacklisted 10bet.com has been added wrongly to wikipedia 4-5 years ago by an amateur SEO company. That ended up in blacklisting 10bet. It's taken care of professionally now.

-- Ransbtech (talk) 07:09, 16 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The only place I could see a link being useful would be on the 10bet page, and as such selective whitelisting is more appropriate. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:26, 16 April 2014 (UTC)