MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2011

=Proposed additions=

better-home-business.blogspot.com and bestitinfo.blogspot.com


Persistent spamming of these two blogspot.com sites to articles including Home business, Business, and Information technology. The user logs in from different IPs each time and doesn't care about warnings given, and neither of the sites has any encyclopedic value. --bonadea contributions talk 09:37, 17 July 2011 (UTC)


 * Also;
 * google adsense Pub-9178204318034401
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * google adsense Pub-9178204318034401
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2011 (UTC)

magaliesmeander.co.za and others


Spamming of these five websites to multiple articles (Magaliesberg, Magaliesburg, Gauteng, for example) by multiple IPs and accounts (listed below) has been ongoing since last year at least. Deli nk (talk) 15:46, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks--Hu12 (talk) 13:27, 19 July 2011 (UTC)

chronicprocrastination.org and related domain


It's a commercial link (the "Organization Against Chronic Procrastination" exist only to sell you a $40 ebook), and there have been at least seven attempts from varied IPs to add it to the procrastination article since last November  including two with a misleading edit summary of "removed spam link" . Would also be worth blacklisting fearlessproductivity.com, since that's the "recommended cure" that chronicprocrastination.org links to to make its sale. --McGeddon (talk) 08:55, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * More Related;
 * Accounts
 * Clear evidence of spam and false edit summaries and moving ones "own" link UP are never signs of good faith. Thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Clear evidence of spam and false edit summaries and moving ones "own" link UP are never signs of good faith. Thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Clear evidence of spam and false edit summaries and moving ones "own" link UP are never signs of good faith. Thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear evidence of spam and false edit summaries and moving ones "own" link UP are never signs of good faith. Thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Clear evidence of spam and false edit summaries and moving ones "own" link UP are never signs of good faith. Thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:21, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

carbaze.com
Clear spamming intent - especially evident with the use of four IP addresses from the same ISP within a very short period of time this morning. --Biker Biker (talk) 07:31, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * More
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . thanks for the report.--Hu12 (talk) 13:14, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

spekmedia.com



 * Spammers

. MER-C 13:22, 28 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 28 July 2011 (UTC)

physiotherapy-treatment.com



 * Spammers

IP hopping linkspammer, has been going off and on for 2+ years now. - MrOllie (talk) 18:31, 29 July 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

ysrcongress.org

 * Spammers

This is a placeholder which is being repeatedly added to articles about the Indian political party YSR Congress Party and Y. S. Jaganmohan Reddy, the politician who founded it. It is added either by IPs or by s.p.a. accounts. The website consists of a false "under-construction" notice and a "this domain is for sale" notice; there is no actual content. -- Orange Mike  |   Talk  18:19, 30 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

tokyotooth.com

 * Spammers

I don't know the contents of the page, but it was added several times by the IP and the user who are more than likely one and the same. There's no use for another random Japanese language reading guide, particularly to one on some unknown website.— Ryūlóng ( 竜龙 ) 02:28, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spamming, editwarring ect..--Hu12 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2011 (UTC)

asiansnakewine.com
Collectively added to Snake wine 29 times over 5 years by 23 unique (mostly Thai?) IPs; including reverts this accounts for nearly a quarter of all edits to that article. diffs --CoJaBo (talk) 06:21, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Spammers
 * Spammers
 * Spammers
 * Spammers
 * Thanks for the report, ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:02, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

dltruth.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 09:23, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

jinglestop.com / reklammuzik.com


Two commercial (and non-English) websites that have been repeatedly added to the Jingle article by anonymous IP editors for over three years, with no sign of stopping. (I raised this last November but nothing seems to have happened.) --McGeddon (talk) 14:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2011
 * tr:Special:Contributions/212.146.130.28
 * es:Special:Contributions/212.146.130.28
 * pt:Special:Contributions/212.146.130.28
 * tr:Special:Contributions/85.103.83.26
 * tr:Special:Contributions/212.146.145.250
 * tr:Special:Contributions/88.242.144.40
 * . Thanks for the follow up.--Hu12 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * tr:Special:Contributions/212.146.130.28
 * es:Special:Contributions/212.146.130.28
 * pt:Special:Contributions/212.146.130.28
 * tr:Special:Contributions/85.103.83.26
 * tr:Special:Contributions/212.146.145.250
 * tr:Special:Contributions/88.242.144.40
 * . Thanks for the follow up.--Hu12 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)
 * tr:Special:Contributions/212.146.145.250
 * tr:Special:Contributions/88.242.144.40
 * . Thanks for the follow up.--Hu12 (talk) 14:37, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

giggletastic.com




User Nickpace is a COI account, and the creator of this website. They twice tried to create a GiggleTastic! article, which was twice speedy deleted, and they also repeatedly placed the link on articles with little relevance to this website: (,, , , ]). After they were warned about spamming, the IP address - probably the same person - vandalized my userpage (as I was the deleting admin), then today resumed spamming, including one article I've maintained:, ,. Notwithstanding the fact that this is spam, the site itself is simply a copy of other people's work with no original content. It will never be a valuable external link on any article. Resolute 01:46, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * As an aside, I have blocked the IP 31 hours for spamming, and indefinitely blocked Nickpace. Resolute 01:56, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

syndicate.balamoosh.com


A few users have been spamming this game site for the past few months, usually 3-4 times a week and then off for a few weeks or so. An article was created (Syndicate (web game)) but deleted for lack of notability. The link is spammed mostly on List of multiplayer browser games but also on a disambiguation page and as a fake hatnote on a similarly-titled but unrelated article. One of the anonymous users left a note on my Talk page indicating (to me, at least) that they plan on continuing to spam the link. Wyatt Riot (talk) 19:38, 14 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, this has been --Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

optimizing.se
Multiple IPs from Lebanon are adding this link to multiple articles. Deli nk (talk) 13:20, 16 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)
 * And ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:58, 17 August 2011 (UTC)

celebritybiography.info
Persistent spamming. Waiting for user to be blocked but quite probable that somebody else will pop up to spam the same domain. --Biker Biker (talk) 09:49, 19 August 2011 (UTC)
 * One account which has been blocked indef..., for now. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

political.com removal


Political.com has been returned to its rightful owner and should not be on the blacklist. How do I go about getting it removed? Sethdillon (talk) 21:34, 13 June 2011 (UTC)
 * "rightful owner" doesnt appear to be a valid reason for de-listing. Infact, the site appears to Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS and WP:V), possibly a Scraper site Made for advertising and articles are realy no different than linking to a Adsense blog or personal website (fails our External Links policy). Doesnt appear to have any evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers, which would make the link unsuitable (Linking to copyrighted works). Also, has nonsense/filler-text articles prominantly displayed as legitimate articles on the home page, such as in the link, political.com/node/53, which reads "Lorem ipsum dolor sit amet, consectetur adipiscing elit. Donec sit amet nibh. Vivamus non arcu...." ect. If a specific link is needed as a citation, it can be requested it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source, however it appears this site fails several inclusion guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 14:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)

travelkashmir.net removal
i was trying to add a following link travelkashmir.net/Places/Default.aspx under the SRINAGAR page of wiki website when it came up with error message 'Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.' This is a clean website which has useful information about Srinagar and other tourist place of Kashmir. Tourist or travelers can use this website also to search for important information like travel agents, tour operation, Hotels and Hospitals  in case of emergency.

I request administrator to visit the website and see for yourself that this website can he useful for lot of as it has good information and above all this website is for Community Service not for revenue.

Request for removal of tis website from blacklist be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solinaballa (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

$ whois travelkashmir.net Registrant: vKashmir.com Inamul Bashir Tulsi bagh (Solina Balla)


 * Related domains


 * Users


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their value in support of our projects. . MER-C 08:41, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

echoview.com removal
Not sure why this blacklisted. Certainly no spam ever intended, but yes, this is a commercial website but it is worthy to associate it with hydroacoustics because it's simply the most valued and powerful software for analysis of hydroacoustic data. Competinc products shoudl also be listed of course, but when someone is reeading about hydroacoustics and/or echosounders, there's no reason they shouldn't be informed of the tools available to analyse data from echosounders. Is microsfot.com blacklisted or valid to mention when discussing things like the most popular operating systems on earth or word processers or whatever. It's not spam to list commercial providers of software that is clealryr elated to a particular topic.

The question open to us is why it was blacklisted, ebcause if someone attempted to spam, that is pollute facutla articles with unrelated links and/or clearly attempts to drum up customers or such, then I'd understand, but to the best of knowledge no such thing has ever happened as Echoview and it's providers are communicty orients providers and sufffer from spam as much as amnyone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.245.190 (talk) 07:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It was blacklisted because the website's owner abused Wikipedia for promotional purposes. I note that both your IP and this company are located in Hobart, Australia. We do not delist sites in response to requests from site owners. MER-C 12:23, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

ben-to.net removal
This is somewhat of a strange case. When I tried to create an article for the light novel series Ben-To (which was on track to get an article per WT:ANIME), this website was caught in the spam filter. Upon further investigation, I found WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/ben-to.net/ which was just created five days ago. Apparently, the link is "globally blacklisted by \bto\.net\b", though I don't know why. The site itself is the official website of the anime adaptation, so I need it removed.--  十  八  06:06, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See m:Talk:Spam blacklist. MER-C 06:18, 13 July 2011 (UTC)
 * . This is collateral damage from blocking to.net. We recently solved a similar problem here; I have posted the solution there on meta. Hopefully someone will edit the list there accordingly. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:43, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ at Meta. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:37, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

vbs.tv
I'm listing this here as a technicality, so that the removal can be discussed - and either endorsed or reversed. The link was removed from the blacklist by with the edit summary "Remove vbs.tv as there is no reason anywhere to be found for its inclusion".

However, the site is listed in the log at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log, which the log directs readers to WT:WPSPAM item and Spam-blacklist Item - so there is documentation of prior abuse. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:10, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Certainly my understanding is that removals of validly listed domains are only made after community discussion not on the whim of an admin? There seem little doubt that there were issues with this domain so the removal seems out of process to me. -- Herby  talk thyme 18:26, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Comment: When notifying Timwi about this discussion, I did find User talk:Timwi, and also Village_pump_(technical). --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:33, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * The user's central issue appears to be that the blacklist notice doesn't explain why a site is blacklisted. While this is a technical limitation of the notice, it does not follow directly from that to claim no blacklisting reason exists. The block notice (found at MediaWiki:Spamprotectiontext) also provides clear instructions to request removal either here or to request at the whitelist - neither of which appears to have been done here. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:42, 23 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi everyone. Sorry if I caused some uproar here or something. All I wanted to do was to start an article. If you want that domain on the blacklist then by all means put it back in. I guess I should have done that myself, actually. But to expect from people who just want to create an innocuous, uncontroversial, non-spam article, to jump through so many hoops before they can even post anything, is completely ridiculous and out of proportion. You seriously need to rethink that because every minute that ludicrous stumbling block is in place, an unknown number of potentially valuable articles and/or edits (mostly from users not in the know) are lost forever, and nobody notices. — Timwi (talk) 21:53, 23 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Sadly not many admins actually understand what happens here - I always did think there should have been some other level of access for this page/aspect. Should be relisted given the absence of any real rationale for de-listing. -- Herby  talk thyme 08:30, 24 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It appears the individual link added by Timwi, here (www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/motherboard/mbd-vbs-the-sakawa-boys) appears to be Coppied/scraped content from the origional site  and would clearly be a more suitable and reasonable alternative.
 * Previous discussions;
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2009
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/08
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May_2010
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2011
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/12
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/03
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/08


 * Plenty of previous disscussion, evidence and opposing consensus for full domain removal by multiple editors and administrators. Therfore, withought predjudice to whitelisting individual links where needed as a citation, this has been Re- due to absence of valid rationale for de-listing and the obvious availiability of the origional source. --Hu12 (talk) 14:55, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

Examiner.com


Appears to be a legitimate news site. (Note that the link above is not red - and WP article mentions nothing about it being a spam site.) Has there been some problem with it recently? Yakushima (talk) 02:21, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * This is not a recent issue, rather an on-going one. They are not a legitimate news site. There is no editorial oversight, writers being paid solely by page views and a history of spamming links to article here. Certain articles can be whitelisted on a case by case basis. Just because there is an article on them doesn't make them a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:59, 25 July 2011 (UTC)


 * . See also MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests. It's on the blacklist, it will stay on the blacklist, but requests to whitelist specific articles on examiner.com are considered on a case by case basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:44, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

asianmediawiki.com
I am trying to add background information on the movie Cyrano Agency and need to cite a site blacklisted http://asianmediawiki.com/Cyrano_Agency. The Q&A section on their article page has the director detailing how he wrote the screenplay 17 years ago and why it took so long for the movie to come to completion. That information isn't available anywhere else on the internet I can find. Also there's quite a few other movie pages where the blacklisted site would provide similar information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gouchi (talk • contribs) 17:45, 26 July 2011
 * . OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:48, 26 July 2011 (UTC)

fisheaters.com removal
I was very shocked to find that this website was on the blacklist. It is not a blog, it is not spam, it contains no profanity, nudity, hate speech, viruses, etc. It is purely an educational resource for Catholic doctrine, practices, beliefs, holidays, etc. The only objection anyone could ever make against the website is if they objected to Catholicism. That would be a hate crime. It contains in depth information from an orthodox Catholic viewpoint. I think it should be removed as it proves a useful resource for those who want to look further into a Catholic belief or practice that is mentioned on Wikipedia.

I ask whomever is in charge here to please take a look at the website and see for yourself that it is a beneficial website and harms no one. I ask that it please be removed from the Wikipedia blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.81.218 (talk • contribs) 19:06, 8 July 2011 This IP was edited over by Madeformv on 01:02, 5 August 2011.
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2011 (UTC)