MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2012

= Proposed Additions =

limogesboutique.com, limogesboxcollector.com, limogesdirect.net, perfectlimoges.com, and limoges.com




There have also been numerous other IPs, but I have listed only those that have been used recently.

The problem has mainly been spammings of the article Limoges Box, ranging from May 2011 to November 2012. There has been edit warring between two different spammers, removing one another's spam and adding their own, with Miraluck and 97.96.242.159 on one side and 71.105.235.16 and 96.229.138.69 on the other.

Examples from Miraluck and 97.96.242.159:
 * Miraluck adds links to www.limogesboutique.com
 * Miraluck removes links to www.limogesboxcollector.com
 * 97.96.242.159 adds links to www.limogesdirect.net and www.limogesboutique.com, and removes links to www.limogesboxcollector.com

Examples from the other side (71.105.235.16 and 96.229.138.69):
 * 96.229.138.69 adds links to www.limogesboxcollector.com
 * 96.229.138.69 adds link to www.limogesboxcollector.com and removes link to www.limogesboutique.com
 * 71.105.235.16 adds links to www.limogesboxcollector.com

There have also been spammings to several other articles, going back at least as far as July 2008, as in this edit, where Miraluck adds links to www.limogesboutique.com, www.limogesdirect.net and www.perfectlimoges.com to Limoges porcelain, this edit where the same editor adds the same links to Kaolinite, and this edit where 72.184.14.93 adds a link to www.limogesboutique.com to Porcelain, this edit where the same IP adds the same link to Limoges porcelain. Particularly striking is this edit, where 86.147.252.72 adds a spam link to www.limoges.com with the totally misleading edit summary "deleted link spam". (The edit only adds a link, and does not delete anything.) Links to the same site are added here here here and numerous other times over the years. JamesBWatson (talk) 11:07, 26 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Great report James, thank you. All have been --Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

aochiworld.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 08:48, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:23, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

vb.com





 * Spammers

Mostly refspam. Almost never uses the same IP twice, but they all geolocate to France. - MrOllie (talk) 20:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:43, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

inforapid.org
It's a wikipedia mirror. -- seth (talk) 09:19, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
 * see m:Talk:Spam_blacklist (and w:de:WP:SBL, German)

alphahistory.com & lawgovpol.com




These two domains belong to the same company. The SPA Serumy has done nothing but adding links to these two domains, since the account started editing in July 2012. (Examples:   ) Not only do the links add little if any useful value to the article, but it seems that the web site in question (under both its domain names) copies content from other sites and falsely claims to have copyright. This is discussed at External links/Noticeboard. (Permalink to current version: ). JamesBWatson (talk) 11:12, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Gentlemen, I am the manager of Alpha History and have just become aware of this issue. The user "Serumy" is a student who made these edits under the impression that he was helping me to promote the site. He was not acting with my knowledge or endorsement. While I have no particular interest in adding links to Alpha History to Wikipedia, and vice versa, I would ask that you refrain from blacklisting at this time. Our site is a collaboration between several teachers who write all our content, other than documentary sources. We do not steal or copy material from other sites, as claimed by the user above. Thank you. BCDoone58 (talk) 11:51, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Alpha History Pty Ltd
 * Accounts
 * Since this is limited to one account I'm reluctant to add it. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis and there is evidence that Wikipedia was even used as source information; "I used wikipedia to source my information.". It's clear all the accounts related to this site are communicating and are aware of the problem with Serumy's additions. I expect the additions will cease, however if another instance occurs, I have no objection to adding it. for now--Hu12 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Accounts
 * Since this is limited to one account I'm reluctant to add it. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis and there is evidence that Wikipedia was even used as source information; "I used wikipedia to source my information.". It's clear all the accounts related to this site are communicating and are aware of the problem with Serumy's additions. I expect the additions will cease, however if another instance occurs, I have no objection to adding it. for now--Hu12 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Since this is limited to one account I'm reluctant to add it. I agree with JamesBWatson's analysis and there is evidence that Wikipedia was even used as source information; "I used wikipedia to source my information.". It's clear all the accounts related to this site are communicating and are aware of the problem with Serumy's additions. I expect the additions will cease, however if another instance occurs, I have no objection to adding it. for now--Hu12 (talk) 04:37, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

shufra again
Hi. Hu12 helped last time, in the thread archived at Conflict of interest/Noticeboard/Archive 59.

The spammers are back with two new domains (listed above. Diffs of the sites being added, are here:, ). Please blacklist those 2 new domains. Thanks.

(Further background details, fyi: As Tobias notes at RFPP, they sometimes temporarily redirect the domains to the official/actual industry site (eg that first one, currently), to make the url appear legit, but then later redirect them back to their own business. (Also the spammers are trying to delete talkpage threads - see December history at Talk:Simplified Technical English - which we can revert for now, and we'll request temp page protection if it continues. I'm just noting for completism).) –Quiddity (talk) 23:10, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for watching out for these. If any more are found, keep reporting. . --Hu12 (talk) 20:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

nakki.info
62.194.104.217 (talk) 19:52, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * evidence?--Hu12 (talk) 19:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * . Not that Edit filter search is broken by the space, but doesn't yield anything anyway. 62.194.104.217 (talk) 20:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I've warned the user. Doesn't seem to be enough there to warrant blacklisting, so we'll mark this as for now.--Hu12 (talk) 20:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

zco.com
I noticed this domain was registered on Wikipedia's blacklist: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist. I spoke with the company and they mentioned it had only submitted to Wikipedia once three years ago and that is its only experience with it. Is there a way to figure out why it was blacklisted or what steps I can take to remove it? Sherrymelrose (talk) 13:53, 19 December 2012 (UTC)Sherrymelrose


 * Sherry, that company was incorrect. Multiple parties added those links. Beyond that, this was but one of several domains in a cluster that were spammed by the same people. See this extensive list:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1
 * Looks like some sort of spam-for-hire ring.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 15:07, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * per A. B. --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Additionaly, Sherry, I see you contributions to Wikipedia all involve adding links to the company Neolane Inc., and a similar account has created the article ;
 * Please understand that Wikipedia is not a means of promotion A few established Wikipedia policies;
 * Confilct of interest
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * BLOCK (accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization.)
 * I'll remind you, that your username contains your personal name which appears to connect you to Zco Corporation ( Digital Marketing Service). See "public relations, and marketing" --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * BLOCK (accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization.)
 * I'll remind you, that your username contains your personal name which appears to connect you to Zco Corporation ( Digital Marketing Service). See "public relations, and marketing" --Hu12 (talk) 16:16, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

latestmoviez.com


I was trying to add a news link as a source and found that it is not possible. I thereby request the Wiki admins to review the site and remove it from the blacklist. Or atleast as of now whitelist this url: latestmoviez.com/kareena-kapoors-wedding-dress-revealed/

Thank You — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Unfortunately its blocked due to Excessive abuse. However, there are plenty of alternatives availiable such as http://entertainment.oneindia.in/bollywood/gupshup/2012/kareena-kapoor-wedding-dress-revealed-096924.html --Hu12 (talk) 13:30, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

Well i do see that alternatives are available. I was just wondering how an authority site like that could have been banned. Anyways thanks for the information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.177.159.213 (talk) 14:40, 20 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Its not an authority site.--Hu12 (talk) 16:35, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

It is Khalid here from LatestMoviez, i came here to try again for a removal from wiki spamlist. Sir, we are a team of journalists providing the latest Bollywood updates. Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews in the appropriate sections on wiki movie pages. All said in good faith, once we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and confirm that having understood them all will be done as it is meant to be. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.198 (talk) 18:47, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Khalid, we've covered this ground many times before. Your people were happy to ignore us until they got blacklisted. We're not here to facilitate your business:


 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September 2012


 * Here are possibly related domains:
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted


 * We do not remove domains from the blacklist at the request of site-owners. Frankly, we'd be crazy to do so in your case, given your organization's history of abusing our site.


 * If your material is as excellent as you say, then should a trusted, established editor wish to use one of your pages as a reference, they can make a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to get a specific URL allowed for an article. An administrator will review the request and if there's a compelling reason and if your page meets the requirements of our Reliable Sources guideline, then a link to that specific page may be approved.


 * Some search engine staffs may or may not refer to our blacklist when evaluating web sites for link spamming penalties. If they do this and if it affects your site's standings, I encourage you to take this up directly with the search engine firm; we have no control over this.


 * I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again. We sure don't appreciate it and in the long run, it's probably a very poor business decision for your company.


 * I will review those other domains in the next day or two. I had planned to do this but forgotten until you raised the issue of latestmoviez.com again.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:24, 25 September 2012 (UTC)
 * > I encourage you to never spam Wikipedia again.
 * > [O]nce we are off the spam list we will never give you reasons to get us back there. I have personally gone through all wiki guidelines and [...] understood them
 * Surely not ...
 * > Please remove us from the spam-list so that we can add our original unbiased critic reviews [to] wiki movie pages.
 * . No means no. MER-C 04:19, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

I simply hope we can make things work out again. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.138.47 (talk) 11:00, 28 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Blacklist evasion:




 * MER-C 11:30, 30 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Another
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Range Blocked, urls --Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:42, 1 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Range Blocked, urls --Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2012 (UTC)


 * 3 related domains: noaho.net, mp3gag.info, mybloggingways.blogspot.in
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:59, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Plain text spamming: Username matches discussion above. MER-C 13:07, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Registrant/Owner: Khalid Khan --Hu12 (talk) 18:18, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Forgot to mention it here, but a few days ago I changed the regex to catch any TLD of latestmoviez. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Facebook.com/ShakespearsSisterOfficial


This is plain weird, but for some reason the official music page of Shakespears Sister on Facebook is blacklisted specifically. There is nothing vulgar or pornographic on the page, it's simply an artist page with important news and announcements, that is essential to use as a source.--Meluvseveryone (talk) 18:49, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Here are the relevant links supporting the blacklisting:
 * Apparently the page was spammed multiple times, and the person controlling the page was unable to demonstrate that the domains registered, and by association the facebook page are indeed official as claimed. I don't see any reason to remove from the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:58, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Avoiceformen.com
This request is for the ban on avoiceformen.com to be removed, at least on a page by page basis. I reviewed the original complaint about how various australian IPs had been adding this men's rights activist blog/website to articles. I looked at the examples and agree they were abusive but that the site is too important to allow the site to be banned because of actions of potentially one misguided user roaming internet cafes.

How the link can be useful on Wikipedia: avoiceformen.com is the largest men's rights organization in the hundreds of websites and blogs known collectively as "the manosphere". The term "manosphere" has over 74,000 results in Google and is mentioned in various government reports but has yet to appear in wikipedia. With men perceiving that they have been largely censored from expressing their opinions on gender issues in the mainstream media, the community is almost exclusively online. Avoiceformen.com offers an explanation of terms, concepts, that are indispensable describing this growing social movement. I have quite a number of wikipedia additions I've drafted to describe those terms and concepts used throughout the men's rights movement. Not having the ability to reference Avoiceformen.com without having each link approved will be a big inconvenience for me, but not having the ability to reference the site at all will make the effort practically impossible, since a great many of the men's rights activits in the english speaking world have written for, or are in some way associated with the website. As a third party who does not work for avoiceformen.com nor has any formal relationship with the operator of the site or any employee of the site, I feel that whether or not one agrees with it's precepts there is significant benefit in allowing this movement to be documented neutrally and impartially in wikipedia.

Reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore: Blocking such an important men's rights website in its entirety for the misuse of potentially one single australian user makes as little sense as blocking youtube.com for the abuse of one video channel. Furthermore the website is based out of Texas not Australia. The owners of the site may have opinions that are disagreeable to some, but they appear to be quite fastidious about properly citing what they believe reliable sources rather than inserting fake references as the spammer has done. The spam was almost certainly not from the site itself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicalv (talk • contribs) 16:34, 3 December 2012


 * I took a quick look at the main page for this site -- it doesn't look like it meets our requirements of our reliable sources rules (see WP:RS) -- am I missing something? If it doesn't, then I don't see much value in removing this from the blacklist.


 * Also, some of the site's pages potentially pose major WP:BLP (Wikipedia jargon for "libel") problems should someone link to them from here.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:19, 4 December 2012 (UTC)


 * See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2012 for a detailed look at this domain's history on Wikipedia.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 02:30, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm reopening this request for removal as I believe the editor has completely missed the point. Avoiceformen.com is a large part of an almost exclusively online movement (the "manosphere") that nevertheless consists of hundreds of websites, blogs, and forums. Whether or not one agrees with its positions, it needs to be documented. It is categorically impossible to document such an online movement on wikipedia if its main proponents can't be referred to in wikipedia. It's also important not to stray from the proper intent of the spamlist. The argument about the site potentially containing libel is applicable to the approval of an individual article not to the banning of an entire website as spam. And as for writing an individual article, I'm sure you would agree its certainly possible to document them from a neutral position, simply representing their opinions as being "their opinions" without attaching any bias.

As for whether a website is a credible source for an article. If the article is about an online movement, there obviously can be NO BETTER source than the websites themselves that are being discussed.

Finally it's important to note that this online movement (the "manosphere") arised in response to what they felt was the well documented censorship in the mainstream media of any male opinions on gender issues that dissented from what they refer to as feminist doctrine. So although the movement literally contains hundreds of sites that receive a HUGE amount of combined web traffic, regardless of whether it's because of this censorship they mention or because of their own choice, they are ABSOLUTELY INVISIBLE in the mainstream media. In addition to the fact that its obviously more accurate to document them by referring to them directly, there is also NO OTHER WAY to document them. Again, bear in mind that Avoiceformen.com is the LARGEST website worldwide in the men's rights section of the "manosphere". Banning any reference to the chief source of an entire movement is tantamount to censoring out the existence of that movement. I'm sure that as someone who's taken their valuable spare time to edit wikipedia, you value wikipedia too much to see it robbed of the opportunity to be more complete. Ethicalv (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is a blog/forum/wiki site which fails Wikipedias specific requirements of the External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. It was added as a result of abuse and most everything you mention are not valid reasons for removal nor does any of that have merit on whether this site is a Verifiabile or Reliable Source. Not being a "Verifiable Reliable Sources" means using any those links can violate WP:BLP. Your statement;
 * "Banning any reference to the chief source of an entire movement is tantamount to censoring out the existence of that movement."
 * Arguing "censorship" as a method to get a site de-listed is vexatious. Therefore, this is closed and --Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Avoiceformen.com
I respectfully request that you take the time to consider and address my specific arguments rather arguments rather than responding with a blanket argument such as "everything you mention is not valid nor does any of that have merit on whether the site is considered a verifiable source". Ending the discussion so abruptly with such an unhelpful ultimatum rather than engaging in a good faith effort to resolve the issue is far more vexatious than any misinterpreted comment I may have made. I hope we can continue to work towards a solution without such talk in the future.

You misunderstood my entire argument as to why that content is suitable. I seek to document the manosphere. I do not seek to present it's views as mainstream or authoritative on any issue. By any definition websites of the manosphere are certainly "reliable sources" for any insight on the positions of the manosphere itself, even though they are not a considered a reliable source for opinions on other issues. This usage is clearly allowed within wikipedia, such as with the article on the Time Cube. The article refers directly to that website exactly as I suggested would be appropriate in the case of the manosphere. Also though by any measure the concept of a Time Cube is certainly "fringe", that was no reason to exclude the concept from wikipedia, because the article doesn't attempt to state that the interpretation is accepted by anyone other than its creator. This is EXACTLY what I propose to do.

Further justification for the removal of the ban is that "reliable" mainstream sources have identified avoiceformen.com as being authoritative for the manosphere. So using using avoiceformen.com as a source for the usage of terms within the manosphere that it is part of is then perfectly within wikipedia's Verifiabile and Reliable Source policies.

Your assistance is appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethicalv (talk • contribs)
 * See thread above - . --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 05:19, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And to have individual pages considered for white-listing on a case-by-case basis, as you originally suggested in your first of this series of proposals. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:31, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * In addition to the three(3) separate requests here (now combined) and one on Meta, it appears the requestor is forum shopping multiple notice boards; Dispute resolution noticeboard Administrators' noticeboard. --Hu12 (talk) 03:24, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * For future reference, here are links to subsequent and/or concurrent discussions involving Ethicalv and avoiceformen.com links:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive242 (permanent link)
 * Dispute resolution noticeboard/Archive 55
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)
 * User talk:MrOllie/Archive 4
 * User talk:Ethicalv (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs • global count) 20:34, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

indianetzone.com
This links to an encyclopedia site. I got useful information on the Bikaner Camel Corps from here: indianetzone.com/64/bikaner_camel_corps.htm. Yes, the site design is terrible, but that doesn't make it spam (nor does the fact that an IP inappropriately added links from the same company, not the same domain). I got the following information from the site [these are my notes]: Prof. Squirrel (talk) 18:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Bikaner Camel Corps operated under Imperial Service Troops in India
 * Participated in WWI and WWII
 * Imperial Service Troops under "official armed forces of the princely states of India under the British Empire"
 * Served alongside with British Indian Army


 * Relevant case at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Jul 1.
 * That site consists of user-generated content similar to Wikipedia, and is therefore not useful as a reference here. According to their press release:
 * The most unique feature of Indianetzone is that it gives a platform to the general people to display their talent and writing skills. The special section called Become A Writer invites the readers to contribute articles on any subject of their choice which is published on the website along with the author's description and photograph. This, according to Mr. Modi, will help students to build up their profile and become a popular name on the Internet.
 * While the articles appear well written and are probably well researched by their respective authors, the press release disqualifies those articles as Reliable sources. . ~Amatulić (talk) 02:17, 9 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks then. Prof. Squirrel (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

ncww2mt.freewebspace.com
Appears to have got trapped by other wider blocks on freewebs sites. Tying to fill in ref detail on Closed cinemas in Kingston upon Hull Keith D (talk) 18:39, 6 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Nah, the whole domain is simply blacklisted. I presume you are looking for a local whitelisting on the Wiki where you are using it, we can't whitelist globally and I don't think we are removing a whole domain just for one ref (where the rest may still give us the old problems).  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:11, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Just looking at English Wikipedia so whitelist there would be fine. Keith D (talk) 10:18, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Hence, . --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 10:42, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

www.nextiva.com
Would just to know why the website was blocked? And if it is possible to unblock it. I am currently creating an article of the said company, and I am adding references linked to that site. Thanks! --Renzoy16 &#124; Contact Me 09:44, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Was added over on Meta (globally blocked) due to multi-account related spamming. Hyperlinking to primary sources isn't needed when an article is under development, so once your article is in the article space, just  and request a specific URL you would like to use.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

mymovingreviews.com
I was trying to add a page as a source regarding moving companies lawsuits. The site is a user-generated reviews site for moving companies and they also write about the industry/cover industry news in the news section. I see that some companies have abused Wikipedia by adding links to the website to their company profiles, but the website is a reputation in the moving industry and is mentioned all over the news (cnet, reuters, pcword, etc.). They also have some interesting interviews of authorities and news coverages in the niche that can also be of value to Wikipedia, especially around the new moving scam reports released by the Department of Transportation and senate.gov. I also don't think that many companies will abuse by adding links to the site as there are only a few moving companies (the largest ones) listed in Wikipedia. I think it will be of benefit is it is removed from the blacklist. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarieContrado (talk • contribs) 15:07, 13 December 2012‎
 * In addition to the past abuse, user-generated content fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 19:42, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Dear Hu12, thanks for the quick reply. I was particularly referring to the non user-generated part of the site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.44.173 (talk • contribs) 13:15, 14 December 2012‎
 * Specifically you mentioned the interviews, news coverage and moving scam reports. They are all user generated, very little isn't. Neither the Department of Transportation or senate.gov are blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 13:56, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Hi Hu12, I think you've misunderstood me. Here are some examples of non user-generated types of content I mentioned earlier: /move/exclusive-interview-amsa (interview) /move/moving-industry-snapshot-2012 (stats) /move/lawsuit-against-moving-companies (article) /move/cutting-expenses-with-reviews (research) Since the site is still in the blacklist, I can't paste the full path. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.19.44.173 (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Exactly, user generated.--Hu12 (talk) 15:03, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

Leonberger


I have tried to save the citation and this url which apparently is on the black list. I eliminated the "http://www" from the link, so that I can save this, and show you where I found it. I request that this link be permitted. I was sent to you by the help desk. Thank you. 7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 01:50, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Why not use an alternative source? http://www.akcchf.org/canine-health/health-testing/spotlight-on-genetic-tests/inherited-polyneuropathy-in.html looks to have similar information. Werieth (talk) 01:53, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Works for me. Thanks.  7&amp;6=thirteen (☎) 02:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

virtualmedicalcentre.com for Sweat gland
Me again. Specifically, virtualmedicalcentre.com/anatomy/sweating-perspiration/75. The article has a lot of good information, especially on eccrine v. apocrine v. apoeccrine glands. The site is verified by Health On the Net Foundation (verification here) and it's not on Quackwatch. —Prof. Squirrel (talk) 05:47, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * What you are basically asking for is whitelisting of one specific link, hence: . --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:16, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

moneyweek.com
MoneyWeek is a reputable UK finance publication, which has its own Wikipedia article - MoneyWeek. -- Astellix (talk) 06:14, 21 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Unfortunately, there was relentless spamming abusing sites related to this by several editors using several domains with a clear incentive to abuse Wikipedia for the profit of these sites (it may have included this site). It may be that the site is useful somewhere, but for that, a good, specific whitelisting is sufficient - .  --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 08:13, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

examiner.com


The article I wish to link is: examiner.com/article/hoekstra-reconsiders-decides-to-challenge-stabenow

I read the Common Requests and it looks like the issues regarding examiner.com are more closely related to editorial policy then outright spam.

This particular article is non-controversial in content and is being used as a replacement for a dead link that was available in a better known publication:. The Detroit News routinely removes articles after a short period of time. The content is reliable, but the examiner has preserved it's content longer.

It should be made available for the article, United States Senate election in Michigan, 2012. Currently, the citation is referenced in a non-linked form.--Libertyguy (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * I think this should be handled at the whitelist - . --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT  C on public computers) 06:12, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
 * And if I saw that request on the whitelist page, I'd decline it. It's standard political news that should be available anywhere; no need to reference something written by a student. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =

Log?
Just a quick question, is there a log of edits that trigger the spam blacklist, analogous to the edit filter log? Deli nk (talk) 21:00, 4 December 2012 (UTC)
 * 1542 MER-C 11:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. A log would be useful, but since that bugzilla request has been there since 2005, I guess it doesn't seem too likely that it will happen.  Deli nk (talk) 13:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Namespace filter?
It would be useful to blacklist links to some sites from articles only, such as those that provide potentially useful information but don't meet the requirements for reliable sources. Is this possible? If not has this been requested? Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Spam filter screen
At the end of the page there's a link to return to the editing page, but the edit is lost. Until 23193 (or comment 2 of 9416) is fixed, could this be replaced with a message saying to use the back button? Peter&#160;James (talk) 23:39, 7 December 2012 (UTC)