MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2008

= Proposed Additions =

spreekillers.org
Was directed here from AN. All details can be derived from my initial posting at WP:AN.

I would appreciate inclusion of this link on the blacklist. User:Dorftrottel 10:03, January 18, 2008


 * This could qualify as an attack site, however seems it references (and links to) Bio articles on Wikipedia about spreekillers. I've only been able to find 2 users editing;
 * Maby more info is needed?--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maby more info is needed?--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Maby more info is needed?--Hu12 (talk) 23:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Untill more info is added, may want to --Hu12 (talk) 23:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

electojets.com and related
electojets.com, elect.awardspace.com/stepper/, 1lo.info/stepping Links to numerous examples are listed at with more discussion at Mdsummermsw (talk) 16:20, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This excessive linkage has been casuing considerable disruption on those pages and is continually placed against community consent.
 * I am listing
 * electojets.com
 * elect.awardspace.com/stepper/
 * 1lo.info/stepping
 * On the blacklist - thanks for picking this up. ✅ -- Herby  talk thyme 16:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * electojects.com/motors/ Is very relevant and useful website for related Wikipedia articles.--Motos (talk) 00:07, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Support blacklist and closing--Hu12 (talk) 00:16, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

bannu.com
Spammer's contribs:
 * Contribs (e.g.)
 * Contribs (e.g.)


 * Only one warning has been given (& template ones would be better) so this does not seem to warrant blacklisting at present unless there is continuing link placement - thanks ❌ -- Herby talk thyme 13:24, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

groups.yahoo.com
Several different accounts including IP editors keep adding yahoo group spam links to the Shane Diesel article, and other articles are using yahoo groups forum type sites for references, which do not qualify per WP:SPS
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * 
 * —Preceding unsigned comment added by CrazyRob926 (talk • contribs) 21:29, 27 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I doubt even 1% of our Yahoo groups links meet either of our relevant guidelines (External Links or Reliable Sources) however we have over 5000 of these links. Blacklisting them would cause tremendous disruption until all the links were removed, a very labor-intensive process for somebody. Not only that but some of the several thousand editors that placed these links would get pretty annoyed unless we had gotten some community consensus to take this step first. I suggest possibly raising this at the Village Pump first. That, or if you just have specific subdomains you want blacklisted, we could blacklist just those subdomains. -- A. B. (talk) 23:00, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Squelch it, I'd say. MER-C 07:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Since Myspace has been black listed I honestly thought doing the same to yahoo groups would be just as easy as a decision, but if that's not currently an option the address that keeps getting spammed on the article above is groups.yahoo.com/group/shanediesel CrazyRob926 (talk) 18:17, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * CrazyRob, I think it's a good idea but a big undertaking. In the meantime, I'll blacklist the subdomain. -- A. B. (talk) 18:50, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 20:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree AB, but groups.yahoo.com needs to be done at some point. --Hu12 (talk) 20:42, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

More Indian poetry spam


Returning vanispamcruftiser, see WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 08:00, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅. added the third listed on WPSPAM also--Hu12 (talk) 20:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)



Hopefully the last of this lot. MER-C 03:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

ghthesoap.com
From here, "All information displayed on the site is fan driven."

On November 4th of 2005, an anonymous IP added these links to a string of articles, including WP:BLP, blatantly engaging link-farming. 

&#9775; Zenwhat (talk) 18:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Dating from 2005 I don't think blacklisting is appropriate. There is no current disruption to Wikipedia - thanks ❌ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Herbythyme (talk • contribs) Jan 30, 2008

More Yuwie.com spam on Wikipedia

 * Yuwie spam domains:
 * Now blacklisted
 * Now blacklisted




 * Yuwie spam articles deleted multiple times:
 * Yuwie Social Network -- deleted 2 times
 * Yuwie signup -- deleted 2 times
 * Yuwie -- deleted 6 times
 * Yuwie.com -- deleted 5 times


 * Yuwie-related accounts:

-- A. B. (talk) 21:34, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 21:39, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

treatment-skincare.com
Repeated additions to multiple articles by multiple IPs. Examples can be found in linksearch results:
 * Deli nk (talk) 15:57, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes - not massive but enough to irritate! Given the changing IPs I've ✅ this one.  Thanks for catching it -- Herby  talk thyme 16:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

funarulez.com spam on Wikipedia
Google Adsense: 7232663723163461
 * Spam tracking data:

There may be related domains but I was unable to find them.

-- A. B. (talk) 17:03, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Account:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 17:07, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

www.digitpress.com repeated spam on Wikipedia
Was directed here from WP:SSP, an admin said this should be the next step. A previously blocked user has been using multiple sock puppets over a year and a half period to spam digitpress.com links and vandalize pages. All relevant information can be found at Suspected_sock_puppets/Tube_bar. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:13, 30 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Accounts Joe Santulli, owner/creator of Digital Press


 * See WikiProject Spam Item . Would appreciate more input on this issue--Hu12 (talk) 06:30, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * adding some data--Hu12 (talk) 13:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I asked for spamblacklist after the SSP case. Even if these guys have some good edits, if this has been going on for 1.5 years, I think all the named accounts should be indef blocked. Stonic is the master account. — Rlevse  •  Talk  • 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * This is persistent & troubling to en wp & its editors. ✅ -- Herby  talk thyme 14:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I've indeff'd the remaining accounts above--Hu12 (talk) 14:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't know it it matters that much, but the categories aren't matching up. There's "sock puppets of Stonic" which redlines, and "suspected wikipedia puppets of Stonic".  --Marty Goldberg (talk) 17:27, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Turkish tourism spam

 * Spam domain summary:
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains
 * Note: I did not have a chanced to look for related domains


 * Accounts:

-- A. B. (talk) 20:49, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam article:
 * Http://www.alleurohotels.com/


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 20:54, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Alfaintercom spam

 * Domain tracking data:


 * Related domains:


 * Possibly related domains:

-- A. B. (talk) 00:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * I blacklisted 12 of these domains on 23 January and 2 more today (drugsinfo.us and alfadrugs.com). I did not blacklist any of the "possibly related domains".


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 21:02, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Priory of Sion


Ronnotel (talk) 05:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * See also → Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents--Hu12 (talk) 05:08, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 05:26, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

✅ Done Ronnotel (talk) 13:50, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Logged this entry --Hu12 (talk) 14:38, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Ronnotel (talk) 15:31, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Yet another added → priory-of-sion.tripod.com --Hu12 (talk) 02:08, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Aryavart Impex spam

 * Spam domain:


 * Accounts:

-- A. B. (talk) 13:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Pages deleted as spam:
 * User:Aryavartjewelry1
 * Aryavart Jewelry India


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

music-selector.blogspot.com


See WT:WPSPAM. MER-C 07:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 08:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Moscow on The Hudson

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 15:29, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:35, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Copy Pro spam


Constantly being added through bogus user pages advertising some marketing scheme found by "Jay Kubassek" and "Mike Dillard". Ones I've found (now deleted) include:

--Calton | Talk 15:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Blocked the unblocked users. I think these should be listed but out of time.  Removed one non existent user?? Cheers -- Herby  talk thyme 16:04, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Adding back Carboncopyscam, it had an errand "')" in the username, its been fixed ;)--Hu12 (talk) 16:32, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree also..✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:37, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

journalreview.org

 * Accounts

Long term....--Hu12 (talk) 16:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * More ✅--Hu12 (talk) 13:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

testmax.webng.com


Both links point to same Google-ad site. Frequently added to Graduate Record Examination from a number of anon IPs in the 203.187.208.* range:
 * OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks Ohnoitsjamie--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks Ohnoitsjamie--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks Ohnoitsjamie--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅, thanks Ohnoitsjamie--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

noooxml.org

 * Accounts

recent activity see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2007_Archive_Sep --Hu12 (talk) 19:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

colinjoss.com spam on Wikipedia
Google Adsense ID: 1603406589185684
 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:


 * Accounts:

-- A. B. (talk) 01:03, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference:
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents (permanent link)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 01:59, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

danielcoburn.com spam

 * Domain:


 * Related domains:


 * Possibly related domains (not blacklisted today)
 * http://www.strawberrysoftware.com
 * http://www.mtnres.com
 * http://www.mtnres.com

-- A. B. (talk) 18:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * Additional domain I left off the list:
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ (all of them) -- A. B. (talk) 18:41, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Referral links for Play-Asia
Hey everyone! I am really tired of removing Play Asia referral links. Users add them to articles like common "links", and then convert them to referral by exchanging it. Take, for example: his typo fix is actually converting a Play-Asia plain link (which in itself is spam) to a referral link (links that start with play-asia.com/SOap are referral, those starting with play-asia.com/paOS are plain ones). Since these referrals are easy to catch and are not unique (for any referral link to a page there is a plain link going there) I suggest blacklisting play-asia.com/SOap. There are many other referral sites as well, but these are easy to catch (not like Amazon ones). -- ReyBrujo (talk) 04:16, 22 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The IP mentioned appears to have ceased - are there any others involved? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 13:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Done on Meta now -- Herby talk thyme 08:12, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree with this. Is play-asia.com/paOS the same? this link →www.play-asia.com/SOap-23-83-r2q-71-43-77-c-15-tales+of-84-j-70-iuz.html redirects to →www.play-asia.com/paOS-13-71-43-77-c-49-en-15-tales+of-70-iuz.html..?--Hu12 (talk) 11:59, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Carbon Copy Pro 2
A new URL for the "Carbon Copy Pro" spammer

carboncopyproreview.wetpaint.com

--Calton | Talk 10:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks Calton, ✅ (reference )--Hu12 (talk) 12:09, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Isn't the process supposed to be that we get to see a Spam Report and discuss it? So we can not only all see the evidence, but that it can be preserved?  When I tried to review the above, I can't see anything odd.  It's all directed to empty reports.Wjhonson (talk) 16:50, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The link to the previous case is above

Account from today.
 * Sleeper acount Adding two more missed in the previous report (jaykubassekcarboncopy1.wetpaint.com jaykubassekcarboncopypro.wetpaint.com) and closing. Calton if more comes (likely) please report it. --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sleeper acount Adding two more missed in the previous report (jaykubassekcarboncopy1.wetpaint.com jaykubassekcarboncopypro.wetpaint.com) and closing. Calton if more comes (likely) please report it. --Hu12 (talk) 18:33, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

ANOTHER URL, this one being --Calton | Talk 03:28, 10 February 2008 (UTC) ✅--Hu12 (talk) 05:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * wmicarboncopypro.wetpaint.com

www.100megsfree4.com - fairly urgent request
I was about to go to this external link provided on a Wikipedia article when my avast! anti-virius program picked up on this site sending a computer worm through my computer. While avast! stops it from harming my computer, I can't say the same for other editors of this site. If it wasn't for avast!, this worm would have been untraceable, for a while at least. — Save_Us   †  18:00, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Urgently ✅, we'll sort the rest later. thanks Save Us 229! Any way to post a log? thanks for alerting--Hu12 (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * My avast! program deleted the temporary internet file instead of adding it to the virus 'chest' for a log, so I would have to visit the site to produce results again (and after I visited it last time the virus catching was so frequent I had to disconnect my network cable to stop the infection and restarted my computer). It is pretty vague but the last time I visited the site a year ago maybe and back then the content was fairly legitimate, but then again, my computer completely crashed from virus infection (I think I know why now >.>). — Save_Us   †  18:49, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * And if you were wondering if I could get a log of the Malware or anything like that, all I know is that it was called a VBS:Malware-gen, a malicious visual basic script file, under the classification of worm/virus, and the name of the file. I wish avast! had more accurate logs, but thats all they gave me. — Save_Us   †  22:19, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm inclined to leave this on untill more is determined. this hasn't been logged yet.--Hu12 (talk) 22:30, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard also reported this to AN for input. --Hu12 (talk) 22:39, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know about you, but I got no infection. I sandboxed Firefox to see what it did and nothing happened and I sandboxed Internet Explorer 7 and got nothing.  I looked at the HTML and couldn't find anything malicious.  x42bn6 Talk Mess  22:53, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Could it be an outdated version of avast!? Apparently on the 25th of January Avast decided to mark e-tracker code on websites as that virus. But that was fixed shortly thereafter. Agathoclea (talk) 23:34, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Yeah, apprently I'm a idiot with out-of-date software. :( Please, unblacklist it as a false positive. — Save_Us   †  23:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a false positive. It's no longer listed. Always better to be safe than sorry. Thanks. --Hu12 (talk) 00:06, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Meh, still dont make feel any better about it, but I guess I did what I should have. — Save_Us   †  00:10, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * have all the linkremovals been reverted? Agathoclea (talk) 09:26, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I reverted myself and when I told someone else they started to remove them too, but after the false positive was reported, he reverted too. Not sure if there are any others. If so it is only one or two. — Save_Us   †  15:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

thursdaysfictions.com

 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

clickok.co.uk



 * Sample diffs:


 * Likely a bot (or multiple bots) working from a rotating IP (making communication nigh impossible). Primarily targets Monomyth, but also hits related articles occasionally. I found a few non-enWiki links, but they were sparse enough I don't think the meta blacklist would be necessary. Semi-protection on Monomyth was attempted, which worked while it lasted, but I believe this will be a better long-term solution. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 19:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this here. This is cross-wiki spam, so it needs to be blacklisted on Meta-Wiki at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. Let me do some digging around on this one. -- A. B. (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Alright. Aside from the French link I sampled above, I found a couple of others on languages I didn't recognize when link hunting yesterday (and forgot to write down what they were, mea culpa). Don't know if there's an easy way to check for that now that they're gone, though. --Infophile (Talk) (Contribs) 21:53, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Don't worry about it -- thanks for cleaning up.


 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:
 * There appear to be more that I did not find immediately:


 * Spam article:
 * Hero's Transformation


 * Accounts (partial list):
 * fr:Special:Contributions/172.188.181.182
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:09, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * -- now blacklisted on meta:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link) )
 * -- A. B. (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

$5 for 10 submissions to Wikipedia
Interesting proposition.


 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:

-- A. B. (talk) 22:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 22:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

studentbeerpong.com

 * Accounts:

-- A. B. (talk) 17:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Spam domains:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 17:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Carteret Mortgage spam

 * Spam domains:


 * Related domains:


 * Spam accounts:

-- A. B. (talk) 03:38, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Reference:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Dec 1


 * Note: There are numerous other domains registered to Carteret Mortgage c/o its main office in Virginia. The spammed domains are all registered to one of their regional mortgage offices in the Carolinas (Lake Wylie, SC/Charlotte, NC). For now, I have just blacklisted the domains directly tied to that office. if there's more spam, we can expand the blacklisting to include everything.


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 03:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

ConvenientPower (Hong Kong) spam

 * Domain:


 * Deleted articles:
 * Convenient Power
 * Convenientpower
 * Wireless power transfer
 * Green electronic

-- A. B. (talk) 14:25, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 14:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Playdesi spam

 * Accounts:

Google Adsense ID: 4938575759142349
 * Spam domains:

-- A. B. (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 14:52, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Maestro Business Solutions spam

 * Domain:

-- A. B. (talk) 18:49, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Account:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Broward Flooring Specialists linkspam

 * Domain:

-- A. B. (talk) 19:02, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Account:


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 19:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

More asiafanclub spam
Accompanied by disruption and disputation.


 * Domain:


 * Account:

-- A. B. (talk) 04:58, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Prior drama:
 * Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362
 * Requests for checkuser/Case/Mondrago
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive366
 * Talk:Asia (band)


 * ✅ I have blacklisted the expression "asiafanclub" rather than any specific domain. I expect this user to go through a sequence of similar domain names on various free hosts to make a point and to bypass this blacklist. -- A. B. (talk) 05:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)


 * See also - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive139

= Proposed Removals =

unrealroyal.com
This site was added to the blacklist under a presumption of being an "attack site" against a Wikipedian. Whether or not that was at one time true, it is no longer true. Sites which "clean up their act" may be removed from the blacklist. Since this site is owned by a Wikipedian, there should be a presumption of good faith in this case, and it should be removed. Thank you. Wjhonson (talk) 07:00, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * See here -- Herby talk thyme 08:01, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
 * No evidence is there *presented* which we can all independently judge. Statements are made, and counter-statements are made, no evidence is shown.  The removal section is for the *removal* of sites previously blacklisted.  Removal not only covers the area of sites added by accident but also covers the removal of sites which have "cleaned up their act" as our policy states.  I dispute now, and have disputed since I was made aware of it, that this site was ever an "attack site" or a "harassment site" as the allegation, without evidence, was made.  The site was and is a criticism site.  The blacklist is not a place from which to silence opponents, silence dispute, or solve content issues related around sources.  That is not the proper use of this blacklist which was set-up for blocking spam sites.  Regardless of all of that, there is a cause for removing a previously blacklisted site, from the blacklist. A criticism site should never be blacklisted, criticism is the basis for democracy.  Without criticism we have censorship.  Wikipedia should never be put in the position of silencing dissent. Wjhonson (talk) 07:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * The author may have attempted to clean up his act a bit on his blacklisted site but he hasn't done so anywhere else. See He continues to accuse the subject of a BLP and the subject of his web site of fraud citing other highly dubious sources that would never meet WP:RS policies.  The author's intent is clear.--Lazydown (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Off-wiki criticism does not have and should not have any bearing on blacklisting a site. Whether a site's source meet out WP:RS policies does not have and should not have any bearing on blacklisting a site.  A site is blacklisted for a few narrow reasons.  This site did not, and does not, meet the criteria for blacklisting IMHO.  The blacklisting admin was an involved editor and in-fact was the original creator of the article. This at the very least gives an *appearance* of impropriety whether or not it actually is such a case.  Even if the site had at one time, for which no evidence was presented which we can all independently judge, it does not currently apparently.  Thus per our policy that "sites which clean up their act" can be removed, it should be removed from the blacklist. What the owner of the site does in other venues, has no bearing on this case.Wjhonson (talk) 21:19, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


 * I agree with Wjhonson that the site should be removed from the blacklist. It is undisputed that the subject of the site is attempting to lay claim to a monarchical title. If one is going to attempt to become a king, one can't expect to be immune from public comment. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 02:19, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
 * It should also be noted that User:Lazydown, who opposed removing this article from the blacklist, has been blocked indefinitely as a sock puppet of User:Kingofmann, the monarchical claimant and subject of the web site in question. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Yup, thanks. Link can be found here Suspected_sock_puppets/Kingofmann. However this has been argumentum ad nauseam see MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2008. I'm closing this as ✅ Defered to User:SquelchBot--Hu12 (talk) 04:20, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

hanazagorova.xf.cz
I don't know why it's blocked? This web pages contain complete hyperlink discography.

careers.stateuniversity.com
This website contains comprehensive job profiles, using data from sources such as the US Bureau of Labor. It is part of stateuniversity.com, a directory of US state universities. The information appears to be accurate and can be used in many articles. I do not see why this is blocked. TheKillerAngel (talk) 16:37, 26 January 2008 (UTC)


 * When you drill down into the actual content, you get a page that appears to be supported by an affiliate advertisement, making it unsuitable according to WP:EL.
 * Furthermore, the bottom of the pages state "Content on this website is from high-quality, commercially published books available in print form" without specifying any copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers, which make the link unsuitable according to WP:COPYRIGHT (don't link to pages containing copyrighted material). =Axlq (talk) 06:53, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I would agree. Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright --Hu12 (talk) 07:49, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Message from SEOlogy.co.il CEO
Dear Wikipedia,

I have posted this message personally to the people involved, then found this place so I will put it here as well.

My name is Natan Birenboim, I'm the CEO of SEOlogy.co.il, a leading white-hat SEO company in Israel which optimizes the websites of large, notable organizations in Israel and abroad.

A few days ago I've found out that most of our clients, including ourselves, are listed on Wikipedia's Blacklist. After investigating the issue, I have sadly realized that one of our employees abused Wikipedia by pushing links to his own private websites into several entries, ignoring Wikipedia's rules and warnings, disregarding our policies.

If this issue would have been brought to my attention, I would have made sure immediately that it doesn't happen again. But since I haven't personally gotten a warning, there was no way I could have known about the issue.

I have just fired the employee responsible for this disgrace. I request that our company's clients' legitimate websites be delisted from Wikipedia's blacklist immediately.

Here is the list of sites that I request to be delisted:

www.fancydiamonds.net

www.hadassah.org.il

www.fts-soft.com

www.orange.co.il

www.seology.co.il

www.wao.co.il

www.3dvsystems.com

www.africa-israel.co.il

www.arkia.co.il

www.caesarstone.com

www.cognifit.co.il

www.e-mindfitness.com

www.eldan.co.il

www.gemini.co.il

www.hadasit.co.il

www.hertz.co.il

www.idit-technologies.com

www.mainsoft.com

www.meitav.co.il

www.optier.com

www.optonol.com

www.ortal-hr.co.il

www.prepwizard.com

www.reliable.co.il

www.shahal.co.il

www.shomreymishkal.co.il

www.silentium.com

www.tambour-paint.com

www.verlain.com

www.verlain.co.il

www.verlain.fr

Please let me know how we can proceed.

Regards,

Natan Birenboim,

SEOlogy CEO

natan@seology.co.il

972-77-3330186/7


 * Comment I think it would make more sense to make the request for individual links as the need arises to add them. I'm guessing most of those links wouldn't belong in Wikipedia anyway per WP:EL (i.e., appear to be commercial versus informative or non-English language). OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:13, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Note: Previous archived discussion was here.
 * Comment, I note that A.B. has put a significant amount of time in this one, and appears to have initiated the correspondence with SEOlogy. I would defer to hearing his opinion on the matter, although I share Jamie's observation that the lion's share of the links above are simple storefronts which would not be acceptable as external links or references. I would also note that these are listed at meta, and apparently not here - the discussion may need to move.  Kuru   talk  18:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Mr. Birenboim has left similar messages on multiple talk pages; I've started a centralized discussion at:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam (permanent link)
 * -- A. B. (talk) 18:39, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Closing this as   --Hu12 (talk) 20:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

datashaping.com
This and 4 related domains were blacklisted here in August 2007. After a request on meta triggered further investigation, these domains plus 7 more related domains have been blacklisted on meta. I have removed what are now redundant entries here.

References:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist (permanent link)

✅ -- A. B. (talk) 14:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

www.encyclopediadramatica.com/org
I usually tell people I don't belive there's a big bias on this site. But when you censore a joke site like this I'm starting to get second thoughts. If anything the link should be allowed and creating articles about it not(?). IT IS A WIKI PROJECT, IT SHOULD BE LISTED UNDER WIKI PROJECTS! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, let's weigh the potential for abuse (very high) against the potential that ED would be an encyclopedic link (close to zero, considering that Wikis are not considered reliable sources). In the event that a page of this site should be linked, we can add it to the whitelist. You should go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist and ask for a one-page exception, because there's no way this ought to be removed from the blacklist. Cool Hand Luke 15:15, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Read: Wiki project. It is a Wiki project. It's name is just satirical to what you just said. That Wiki's aren't very reliable. Though in the end I'd always trust a 100 people editing an article (the public) more than I'd trust a single professors biased "facts". ((Warning to myself: Off-topic)) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.100.111.208 (talk • contribs) 21:53, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * This is blacklisted on Meta, we can't help you.. -- Versa  geek  22:06, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

❌ by ruling of the Arbitration Committee. MER-C 01:41, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree, This needs to be  and closed--Hu12 (talk) 07:33, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

www.petitiononline.com/njs4ever/petition.html
Why was this link blacklisted? It contains no spyware or malicious intent. It is free speech. It contains useful information for anyone who is passionate about the Arsenio Hall Show and would like to do something about it using the democratic process. It lived on the Arsenio Hall Show page as an "external link." Now it has been both removed and blacklisted. Would love an answer. Thank you

Knyte77 (talk) 05:23, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Please take a look at the specific requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. I don't think this link meets either guideline.--Hu12 (talk) 20:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I took a look....it clearly isn't a "reliable sources" link, nor is it trying to be. It is an external, relevant link. Which passage of the External Sources page are you basing your arbitration on? And again, blacklists are for spam it seems. A petition online link is not spam, is it?

Knyte77 (talk) 03:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Its not a resource about the subject, which is the purpose of the External links area. Its a petition and advocates a point of view, Wikipedia is not the medium for this. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for Propaganda, advocacy, or recruitment of any kind, commercial, political, religious, or otherwise.--Hu12 (talk) 12:50, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

bowsershrine.com
This domain was blacklisted awhile ago. I had mistakenly added some of my own domains, which I didn't at the time realize was against the rules. I now do, and I'm sorry for doing so. Anyway, this domain was blacklisted, which is unfair since it is not my site. I understand that my domains are blacklisted, I broke the rules, rules I didn't realize, but I still did. bowsershrine.com should not be blacklisted though. I did add it too the Bowser page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bowser_%28Nintendo%29 because it has relevant content relating to that page. But I do not own or run that site, and the owner of it should not be punished for my mistake. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.112.59 (talk) 01:38, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk) 19:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

www.journalreview.org
JournalReview.org is a non-profit, free, academic, educational resource which I - as well as about 7000 other physicians and health care professionals internationally participate in. The site allows participants to discuss published medical literature with colleagues. Anyone is able to read the data and discussion posted on JouranlReview.org. Participants can annotate citations by adding metadata beyond what the abstract offers. This allows authors to suplement their work, respond to questions, and alows researchers to gain ideas on how future efforts may be directed to help expand a field. The site charges no fee to use, and shows no advertisements. Please re-consider your position on this site. It has been included on Wikipedia since at least 2005 without objection. The resources has been discussed in several peer reviewed publications, including this one   EBMdoc (talk) 03:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Clear evidence of spam abuse . Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to those who participated in the spamming of the link. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.


 * If a specific link is needed as a citation, a trusted, high-volume etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context) when there are no reasonable alternatives available--Hu12 (talk) 13:13, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your comments. I certainly understand why this link has a pattern that raises a red flag.  I also understand that I am not a power editor... and that is why I am writing here.  I am asking for help, and consideration from the more powerful in the wiki community to review. Please consider the following:

Thank you for your consideration! EBMdoc (talk) 14:49, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Journalreview.org has raised a spam flag because it appears on several wikipedia pages, and was placed their by multiple users.  Is that simply because it is notable?
 * 2) When a link to Journalreview.org was placed on a medical specialty site (ie: pediatrics) - I see that a link to the pediatric section of JournalReview.org was offered.  This was contextually appropriate. The same holds true for other medical specialty pages the link had appeared on.
 * 3) The site is notable.  It has been discussed and praised in peer reviewed literature.  Citations to this notability have been provided.
 * 4) In review of the links that were removed, they do not seem to have been "pushed".  That is to say, a user added the link... and the link was accepted or rejected by the community. And that was that.
 * 5) The link was never "loaded" or suggested more than once on a page.  It seems to have been placed only in appropriate places within articles.
 * 6) There have been no new additions to journalreview.org in some time.  Was the last link added in 2006?
 * 7) What is the value of blacklisting the domain?  If you think the link is not appropriate, why not just remove the links, and let the wiki-community discuss the value openly?  I understand why some domains may at times need to be 'blacklisted' to help protect wikipedia... but what is blacklisting journalreview.org protecting wikipedia from?
 * 8) Please consider that due to the participation in JournalReview.org from different specialty's of medicine, it would be reasonable to expect that those who use JournalReview.org in their specific specialty may offer a link on their specialty's wiki page - as they believe the site to be of encyclopedic importance to medicine.  Is that spam?  Isn't that exactly what happened here.  Isn't that how wikipedia is supposed to work?  Why wound one user (for example a pediatrician) who wants to add a link to journalreview.org's pediatric section to the pediatric wiki page think twice about doing so?  Should they have known that two years later, because an ENT added a link to the ENT page, and a Dermatologist to the dermatology page that all links would be removed and the site blacklisted?  For example, I'm sure that many articles related to medical topics have offered references over time to eMedicine.  Are these all spam?  Though content from eMedicine articles would better be incorporated directly into wikipedia... but eMedicine is not on the blacklist - nor should it be.
 * 9) This is not a request to put links back.  That should be up to the community, and can be discussed on individual pages if members desire.  Wiki's change every day - and over time - for the better.  Maybe the links should be replaced... maybe they should not.  All that I am asking is for careful consideration by more experienced and trusted editors than I of the decision that the link should not have been placed on the spam blacklist.  I do not think that it belongs there.
 * Accounts

--Hu12 (talk) 21:25, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I wanted to apologize for any offense the links I made in the past may have caused. It was not intended.  I do take spam very seriously.    EBMdoc (talk) 02:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


 * After reviewing the details of this case. Specifically the low edit-count, and specific content-linking of EBMdoc.  I actually agree on this case.  That is, that it remain black-listed until an established editor wishes to cite something from it.  (Surprised aren't you?)Wjhonson (talk) 18:05, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:33, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

www.famousamericans.net/fredericknashogden/
I request that this page be removed from the blacklist. I attempted to use this page as a reference in the article Ogden's Cavalry, but was prohibited from doing so because of the page being on the blacklist. I must admit that I am not thoroughly familiar with what criteria puts a page on the list, but after looking the page over, I didn't notice anything offensive on it. Sf46 (talk) 00:05, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
 * It's blacklisted because of this AN thread. MER-C 01:48, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Based on the post by MER-C this is on de-listing, but encourage you to  for requesting a single url for use as a reference.--Hu12 (talk) 01:57, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

asiafanclub.com

 * See also - Administrators%27_noticeboard/Archive139

FYI, this link has been removed from the blacklist by CIreland. References:
 * Talk:Asia (band) as well as the preceding discussion:
 * Talk:Asia (band)
 * Talk:Asia (band)
 * Talk:Asia (band)
 * User talk:Nakon
 * More asiafanclub spam
 * Spamed offsite forums including email abuse
 * Administrators%27_noticeboard/IncidentArchive382

Earlier discussions: -- A. B. (talk) 14:34, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Suspected sock puppets/Mondrago
 * Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive362


 * The article Asia (band) is under a spam attack, there was no consensus for removing this link. The link also fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines.
 * Accounts/IPsocks
 * --Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, this is spam warring by a conflicted editor. I have blacklisted for now, which will stop the problem; that need not be permanent. Guy (Help!) 19:52, 10 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Apologies for all the grief I caused by this removal. Although the logic which caused me do so seemed sound at the time, it's now abundantly clear that it was based on a couple of misconceptions on my part. CIreland (talk) 22:14, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears consensus here and on the articles talk would indicate this is cosed and --Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


 * New site, attempt to circumvent Blacklisting (asiafanclub.4t.com)
 * 23:34, 15 February 2008- -00:02, 16 February 2008- -00:13, 16 February 2008- -00:18, 16 February 2008- -00:25, 16 February 2008- -02:53, 16 February 2008
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:31, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

more--Hu12 (talk) 00:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

An update on this situation: if you'll read the discussion on this, the link to the fan club is clearly sanctioned by the band. The "Asia Fan Club President" has clearly made some shady attempts at adding it, but the consensus among other editors participating in the discussion, is that the link should be included in the article, and "Asia Fan Club" has provided a page from the official band biography listing it as a web resource. I'd like to request that, despite the obviously ridiculous spam-like techniques (including his attempt to redirect the site to circumvent blacklisting) used by the guy who runs the site, that it be removed from the blacklist, so it can be added back to the article. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 20:36, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Did not see any consensus for inclusion, just you campaigning for "Asia Fan Club President" (under multiple IP's) for its removal. First the link fails the requirements of our External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines. Secondly (WP:DISRUPT, WP:POINT), there has been extreme disruption caused by this situation. Multiple spam attacks, edit warring, sneaky attempts to subvert wikipedia policy, creating False consensus through use of mutiple IP's, attempting to circumvent blacklisting by creating asiafanclub.4t.com and worst of all the legal threats made by "Asia Fan Club President". This is a clear case where wikipedia is being terrorized in an attempt to advance a site owners agenda. as the site is inapropriate for inclusion.--Hu12 (talk) 22:08, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hu12, to quote fellow editor Barek within the discussion: "the link needs to be evaluated on its own adherance to policy, not the adherance of the user attempting to post the EL". The article should, as any encyclopedic article, list information as relevant, regardless of the behavior of those in favor of it! It's made clear, and agreed in recent posts, that the link does qualify under the policy. If you feel differently, please discuss, and give reasons to justify your stance. - Shubopshadangalang (talk) 00:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Not a valid reason for de-listing. As stated above and as other administrators repeated Ad nauseam to you on the asia talk page (see links above), it does not meet inclusion criteria. Links to this site were repeatedly added despite the obvious community disapproval. Rationale for placing the link becomes quite secondary to the behaviour, when it reaches this stage. If a specific link is needed as a citation, an etablished editor can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source, in an appropriate context. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 00:49, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

db-copyvio
Problem with the blacklist: I want to use the db-copyvio speedy deletion tag to get an article deleted. The db-copyvio tag has as a parameter the url of the website which is being copied. The website being copied is a blacklisted one, ezinearticles. Oops, the spam filter kicks in. This is bad.--Xyzzyplugh (talk) 19:46, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Try adding without the http:, the checking admin will copy & paste to check it.--Hu12 (talk) 19:50, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Or don't provide the link in the db template, and add it below it (put   around). Or put it on my talk page and I'll have a look. -- lucasbfr talk 19:55, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Fred Ho
I'm new to dealing with this blacklist, so I hope that this is the right place to report my problem and ask for help. Anyway, I want to report the basic facts about Fred Ho's cancer, and the best source seems to be a primary source written by Ho (which I'm using, properly, for only basic facts, not opinion or interpretation). Unfortunately, this source is a blog on MySpace (the guy's a musician, after all), which is blacklisted. At first, I tried to get around this by removing the "http://", but that looked terrible (in the template). So instead I made a TinyURL, but that's blacklisted too (and it wouldn't be a good long-term solution anyway). Then I considered abandoning for a URL inside &lt;nowiki&gt;, but that doesn't work very nicely for the reader. Finally, I decided to link to non-blacklisted site that reprints the diary, but it doesn't seem to have an archive of back issues (so it's a decidely inferior resource). The diary (or some of it) is supposed to published as a book this year; but until then, what should I really be doing? (Note that I am an administrator, if that makes it easier for me to do things by myself.) —Toby Bartels (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

www.independencia.net
Hello, I am a long-time contributor into wikepedia (well, maybe not that long...only about 4 months, but I am proud of my contributions!) and attempted a contribution into the article "Boricua Popular Army" but was blocked as I attempted the SAVE. Wikipedia SAVE function complained that www.independencia.net was a spam site. I verified that the article did contain (prior to my contribution) a link to the www.independencia.net site. www.independencia.net is the official website of a duly recogized political party in Puerto Rico. That party has been one of the 3 major political parties there for over 50 years. In surfing through the party's website I could not find anything that would violate wikipedia's policies. I request that the www.independencia.net link be removed from the global spam blacklist. Thanks. Robruiz (talk) 01:51, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

✅ see, rmvd the offending link, feel free to edit the page. thanks for your contributions.--Hu12 (talk) 06:45, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

= Discussion =

No edit box in the Spam filter notice
Why does the "Spam filter notice" not contain an edit box? This necessitates pressing the back button which in IE (I'm reluctantly using it at the moment) means all edits are lost. There's a possible way around it, to open the article in a new tab, remove the spam link, save it, and then hit refresh in the "Spam filter notice" window to resubmit, but this is a hack and we shouldn't be inconveniencing innocent users like this. (Has happened to me twice already today, once I was adding a new section to a talk page and couldn't save because the existing talk page had a blacklisted link it... like wtf?!) --kingboyk (talk) 14:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links
Please see Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:09, 29 January 2008 (UTC)