MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2009

= Proposed Additions =

nonciclopedia.wikia.com
Another uncy off-shoot which never needs to be linked anywhere and has been spammed on User talk:Hinoa. Has potential to be spammed by the sites users like what happened with uncy.--Otterathome (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC)
 * There are four links, all form Uncyclopedia where this and other language uncyclopedias are discussed. Actually I would think that none of them are notable, and could safely be removed from that article, but that is just my view. Right now I see no evidence of abuse. Guy (Help!) 15:11, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Cross wiki spamming;
 * WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/nonciclopedia.wikia.com
 * Might need looking into?--Hu12 (talk) 19:12, 21 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree, this should probably go to Meta. All the usual article suspects (e.g. Chuck Norris). Guy (Help!) 20:27, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * yup--Hu12 (talk) 01:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

theclassicalshop.net


A commercial download site for classical music, see post at WikiProject Spam and multiple links to their download site from music and related articles. In some cases articles have many different "samples" added to "external links" -all of these downloaded from the one same site. DIFF 1 DIFF 2. FT2 (Talk 21:10, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Can you provide some diffs showing these links were spammed? I spot-checked 6 articles and found the links were all added by regular editors with solid contribution histories. -- A. B. (talk • contribs)
 * Can you provide some diffs showing these links were spammed? I spot-checked 6 articles and found the links were all added by regular editors with solid contribution histories. -- A. B. (talk • contribs)


 * Here's the linking report:
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/theclassicalshop.net
 * I see just one editor adding many of these links, but when I look at his edit history, it looks like he's doing this as an article builder, not a spammer.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:53, 12 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't know for sure what criteria are used for identifying "spam" or "spammer". But when a commercial site's download section is linked 6 or 7 times in a single article, by a single person, that seems to constitute spamming to me. When that's done across multiple articles, then it seemed appropriate to blacklist the site as being used for spam purposes. In other words, it's unlikely to be appropriate to add an external link to this site's download section (or indeed the site itself), and unlikely there would be a legitimate need for such a link. I wasn't so much assessing his wider editing, just the website (or its download section) as a repeatedly added external link. What criteria are you looking to find? FT2 (Talk 23:06, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree. The Spam project report above shows massive overuse of links, and there is no suggestion that this is a reliable source. It's a commercial site with off-the-page sales links, no more appropriate than Amazon. If it's that good then find a way of creating a musicsources mediawiki page and add it as one of the many, but right now this looks like a mix of ill-considered use of a commercial site, deliberate spamming and possibly inadvertent preferential promotion of a particular vendor. Guy (Help!) 20:37, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

--Hu12 (talk) 01:03, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

lyricstranslations.com
This domain hosts copyright violations ; that being translations of works into English; and yes these translations are copyrighted and held by the original copyright holder. The links continue to be inserted into We Don't Wanna Put In, such as this, even after I have posted on the talk page that it is linkvio. As this is not a reliable source for info (it's a blog), and as editors keep inserting this linkvio, we need to treat it as spam, and block the whole domain from being linked to from WP. --Russavia Dialogue 02:23, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
 * It is not clear from what has been asserted that the links are contrary to WP:LINKVIO. The blacklist sledgehammer should not be used to prevent insertion of links to a single article, absent a clear showing that the site hosts massive copyvio. There is no linkspam. These are translations which are presumably copyrighted by the translator, I cannot tell from looking at the site if they are violations. There is difference of opinion as to "proof" required to allow linking, the policy at WP:LINKVIO only requires avoiding linking to known violations, there is a guideline which suggests "reasonable certainty" of no violation and it is not clear to me what level of consensus this enjoys, nor is "reasonable certainty" defined. However, if lyricstranslations.com is highly visible, we can generally assume freedom from massive copyvio, because they would be quickly taken down. (That's a rebuttable assumption, but it would take specific evidence, such as the site being hosted in some place where they are immune to legal attack.) The site does not appear to be a blog. --Abd (talk) 15:11, 15 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Contrary to Abd's assertion the blacklist may iondeed be used if a site is overlinked and looks likely to violate policy. In the first instance, though, I would advise you to simply remove the links; spammers will typically edit war over this, and that tends to be unambiguous. Sites of unproven reliability hosting lyrics of unproven copyright status are not apprporiate as links, whether or not they are appropriate for blacklisting. Blacklisting is a frequent result of the site owner's determination to have such links, and that is not usually in any way controversial. Guy (Help!) 14:29, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Sites which host copyvios can still be used for links to other articles on the same sites. Youtube, for example. ☺ Coppertwig (talk) 23:19, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I see no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright), however for now this is .--Hu12 (talk) 01:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Whaddaya Gonna Do About It? Productions
Article and link-spam: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:13, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
 * facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=50722998675
 * facebook.com/home.php?ref=home#/group.php?gid=50722998675
 * I'm unsure how to format the blacklist regex entry for the facebook URL -could someone help me with this? Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:21, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

kriyayogamission.org
This user has again added a website that had been blacklisted previously under different URLs. Priyanath talk 04:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The latest spamming:
 * The same user's previous spamming:
 * That previous website he added, yogakriya.blogspot.com, along with kriyayogain.com, and kriyayoga.org.in, have all been blacklisted. All were the same as this new one, kriyayogamission.org.
 * These are the diffs to the previous reports which I filed last year on his other URLs:, , which resulted in the others being blacklisted.
 * looks as if the spamming has ceased. Report back if spamming resumes. for now lets mark this as --Hu12 (talk) 01:15, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

digitalspy.co.uk
Unreliable source used too frequently by inexperienced editors. Often found on entertainment BLP's and music related articles. — R  2  01:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't want to blacklist this without broader community consensus or proof that many of our hundreds of digitalspy.co.uk links have been spammed, not innocently added. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:24, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Markin as --Hu12 (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Listing question
An editor has been creating/editing numerous articles using forum postings on "Voy.com" as refs/ELs (in all likelihood to host copyvios). I've removed them per WP:RS, but the editor simply returns them w/o explanation I'm not sure this is technically spamming per se, but when clicking individual links leads to malicious site warnings that leads to diagnostic pages like http: //safebrowsing.clients.google.com/safebrowsing/diagnostic?client=Firefox&hl=en-US&site=http: //www.voy.com/210036/12555.html, I suspect the site requires blacklisting. Is this the right place or is there another blacklist for malicious sites?  Mbinebri  talk &larr; 00:48, 2 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 09:46, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Or apparently not, see User talk:Stifle. Can someone check my regex syntax? Stifle (talk) 13:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

uncyclopedia.org
Old problematic link of uncyclopedia now superceded by wikia.com domain. See third paragraph at Uncyclopedia. All article space links have been updated. Has been heavily spammed. See also:
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkSearch/uncyclopedia.org
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/uncyclopedia.org
 * --Otterathome (talk) 10:08, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
 * but worth keeping an eye on--Hu12 (talk) 01:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

1bondsinsurance.com
Ongoing spamming, continuing beyond multiple warnings. --Barek (talk • contribs) 14:54, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * links
 * accounts
 * looks as if the spamming has ceased. Report back if spamming resumes. for now lets mark this as --Hu12 (talk) 01:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

prsquaredgallery.blogspot.com
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:08, 28 May 2009 (UTC)
 * looks as if the spamming has ceased. --Hu12 (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

orgplus and related linkspam
Commercial links being repeatedly added to Organizational chart article. The IPs have been edit warring over the links, and engaging in persoanl attacks with those who remove the links (example). --Barek (talk • contribs) 22:18, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * links
 * accounts
 * related reports:
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/orgplus.com
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam
 * Nothing since, --Hu12 (talk) 01:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

gomerch.com spam
Spam domains: Related domains: Possibly related domains:
 * (Listed here for the record only; domain ownership is murky)


 * Possibly related account:
 * Possibly related account:

Spam articles: Accounts: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Gomerch
 * GoMerch
 * User:Mr seo writer
 * More;
 * IP continued Adding✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * IP continued Adding✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:40, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Carolina-based celebrity spam
Domains: Google Adsense IDs: 5084164811269167, 8088419878511288, 4826995026115555 Related domains:
 * The majority of these have been spammed also, but I did not have time to wade through all the IP edits

Accounts:
 * Most comes from Carolina, USA, but also some from the UK and Finland -I suspect these may be open proxies

-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:18, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * All ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Check.tc
This URL is trying to piggyback on the popularity of another website (VirusTotal.com) by advertising itself as a competitor in that article. Ham Pastrami (talk) 02:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for flagging this.


 * Blacklisting, like account blocking, is something we prefer to do only if the spammer ignores our warnings. It doesn't look like this guy has gotten any warnings before, so I just left him one. If this continues occurring, please warn the account as you revert his edits. If the spammer ignores 3 or more warnings, let us know here and we will re-list. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:25, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Nothing since --Hu12 (talk) 01:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

topsalesblog.com
. MER-C 13:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

yohost.org
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

live-nudechat.info
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * User:Smileyyoyo deleted spam page
 * User:Smileyyoyo deleted spam page
 * User:Smileyyoyo deleted spam page

loaded-questions.com
Hi, I am wondering if there is any way for me to talk to someone about this? I operate Loaded Questions and was not aware that warnings were being given or that my contributions and those of other members of the community were being considered spam. I have recently been having conversations with editors to understand how adding links to author interviews from a site I am associated with is questionable and/or troublesome according to guidelines. I understand the nature of the single warning I received on June 3rd and that it was the addition of many links to interviews that caused the issue. I would hate for this to hurt the future of my contributions and that of Loaded Questions now that I understand the nature of the offense. KellyHewitt80 (talk) 14:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC) MER-C 08:43, 3 June 2009 (UTC)
 * OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:19, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

ajaximpact.com
Domains:
 * Google AdSense: 0962378291633237
 * Google AdSense: 0962378291633237


 * Google AdSense: 1776305368537500
 * Google AdSense: 1776305368537500


 * Google AdSense: 0962378291633237
 * Google AdSense: 0962378291633237

Related domains: Possibly related:
 * Google AdSense: 7960252409517973
 * Google AdSense: 7960252409517973

Accounts: -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

www.paypal.com/se/mrb/pal
Another variant of the PayPal referral link spamming. Account is using a modified URL to get around the current blacklicsting. See this example. --Barek (talk • contribs) 06:20, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * article
 * PayPal
 * The part between .com and /mrb is a langugecode and thus is a variable. EdBever (talk) 21:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also m:Talk:Spam_Blacklist, can anyone come up with a working regex? EdBever (talk) 11:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Zen Technologies Ltd
1.5 years of dynamic IP spam, 20 spammers so far. . MER-C 09:57, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Spam pages
 * Sites spammed
 * Spammers
 * Goutham Reddy is "SEO at zen technologies ltd" [sic].
 * Goutham Reddy is "SEO at zen technologies ltd" [sic].
 * Goutham Reddy is "SEO at zen technologies ltd" [sic].


 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:09, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Comming from range;
 * Comming from range;

put-in-bay.com listing
See this diff (summary:"You keep deleating we keep building") and the article's history. This spammer came up with a new URL to bypass our blacklist (putinbay\.com is on the blacklist), or so it appears. EdBever (talk) 14:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * See also this earlier list of related sites: 4 years of Edgewater Hotel (Put in Bay, Ohio) spam on Wikipedia. EdBever (talk) 16:25, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I think our Edgewater Hotel spammer (see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2009) is trying to bait us into blacklisting put-in-bay.com -that's a Chamber of Commerce domain, not one of his. Certainly his inflammatory edit summaries seem calculated to goad us into this; see Special:Contributions/65.43.193.9. This behaviour even has a name; it's known as a "Joe job".


 * I suggest that when he turns back up again with a new IP to spam a Chamber of Commerce link you just let the link stand and ignore him.


 * I previously blacklisted every Edgewater-related domain that I could find but I suspect our spammer owns more; I'll be happy to blacklist new ones as they reappear. Just list them here with a link to the June archive section above. If you're unsure as to the domain's ownership, let me know and I'll check them. I spent several hours researching the various domains and business relationships associated with our earlier Put-in-Bay spam; I still have those notes. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:03, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * A.B. is undoubtedly correct about this site being joe-jobbed. In four years of watching these articles, I've never had a problem with the Chamber of Commerce site being spammed. Removing or trying to justify the removal of the Chamber website has been a long-running tactic for the Edgewater spammers. For the record, we include the Chamber website because it's a recognized quasi-official organization in the absence of a local government site. --NormanEinstein (talk) 13:11, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

biolazoberon.com
Link is added sporadically by various IP accounts to Oberon (device), an article about a fake medical diagnostic device of some notoriety (that's why we still have the article). This particular site is written in Turkish but appears to be trying to sell such devices and a training session for $9,800. CliffC (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

alians-d.com.ua
Similar to report immediately above. Link is added sporadically by various IP accounts to Oberon (device), an article about a fake medical diagnostic device of some notoriety (that's why we still have the article). Site appears to be trying to sell such devices and a training session for $9,800. CliffC (talk) 17:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

deshiboi.com
Links in this domain are added on a fairly regular basis by a number of different IPs--perhaps a dozen by now. Articles targeted are Taslima Nasrin (this is a blatant example; there are many of them), Humayun Ahmed (for instance this one), and Muhammed Zafar Iqbal (see this one, for instance). There may be more, and one could find dozens and dozens of diffs where these links (in a very silly way, I might add) are added. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 17:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC) felt the need to blank this request. MER-C 11:07, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Here and here are two more recent diffs. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And another. Drmies (talk) 04:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
 * And another. Drmies (talk) 16:17, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Org chart spam links
Repeated re-insertion of orgchart linkspam (commercial and free) by multiple IPs. Note: additional IPs that have added some of these links also exist, and can be added to the list if needed. --Barek (talk • contribs) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
 * links
 * accounts

discountdental4u.net
Ongoing linkspamming of same link by SPA, going back to November 2007 by the same user account. --Barek (talk • contribs) 22:06, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
 * link
 * account

shiftunderscore.com
Already used once for a |nice NPA message, shiftunderscore.com (208.84.145.22 } has exactly two features, 1.) proxy and 2.) encrypt.  The proxy is open as well. This is my first report, so if it's wrong, give me a holler on my page and I'll fix it.   Thanks. Naluboutes, NalubotesAeria gloris, Aeria gloris 21:09, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

noclaimsdiscount.co.uk
noclaimsdiscount.co.uk have been paying editors to insert links to their website within Wikipedia (See for the diffs). I've checked all of these links (about 30) and they all had next to no value. Some of their articles had factual errors which have then been integrated to WP by the paid editors, and at least one of the articles seemed to be copied and pasted from bbc.co.uk, then slightly rewritten. Overall, the website doesn't really have any useful content, and it's always possible to find a much better source than their "news". Laurent (talk) 20:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

retro.f2bbs.com
MER-C 08:56, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

gbookl.com
MER-C 12:57, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Accounts


 * Still at it under IP's
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still at it under IP's
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still at it under IP's
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Still at it under IP's
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 19:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

spiritshop.com
http://www.elance.com/jobs/edit_10000_wikipedia_external_link_listings/17352803&&catId=12350&rid=18J3T says it all. I've already reverted two demonstration links. Auction closes 13 July, so it isn't a rush. MER-C 10:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped, report back if continues. Lets mark this as for now. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

enontalk.com
This is the AnonTalk spammer's latest gambit, not yet seen here but visible in Google, posting a bogus link plus a text correction. Although we haven't been targeted with this yet, the previous history means it might well be worth blacklisting prophylactically. In any case, it's worth being aware of. — Gavia immer (talk) 01:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

mmohut.com
We've seen a huge increase in new links and external link hijacking to mmohot.com, so much so that it's been rejected as an appropriate source on the official WikiProject Video games sources list. The user listed has been inappropriately hijacking links for a while now, even after having been warned. There's plenty of proof on his contributions and Talk page. I'm hoping something can be done about the site and this user. Wyatt Riot (talk) 10:08, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
 * The user spamming them seems to have been blocked, and spamming has stopped. Report back if it resumes. Thanks for the report., for now--Hu12 (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

ee-reborn.de and save-ee.com
Unofficial fan sites being spammed on Empire Earth for months.--Thearmed1 (talk) 10:07, 5 July 2009 (UTC) Somebody must add it now, he is still spamming it!!--Thearmed1 (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped, report back if continues. Lets mark this as for now. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 19:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

www.chnjsm.com
The website www.chnjsm.com/eproduct.asp produces a Trojan horse (computing) warning with Avast!. The user Todaywz claims it is a site about Chinese manufacturers of electrical power transformers. --Jc3s5h (talk) 11:49, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
 * LinkScanner Online did not find any exploits. While this doesn't conclusively close the claim, more info is needed (a dump of the exploit log). perhaps others can check. thanks!--Hu12 (talk) 19:04, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

soundofmetal.se

 * Non-notable and non-reliable source, featuring poorly written [biased] reviews. Wikipedia [through its heavy metal articles] has been used to promote this fancruft.--  C  anniba loki  04:46, 7 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I get about 205 links currently, some cleanup needs to be done first. the three accounts that stick out are:
 * I'm sure there are more...--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I'm sure there are more...--Hu12 (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

wfalpha.com
Links has been added persistently to Wolfram Alpha article here and on sister projects with the poster pretending that it is a "short link" to wolframalpha.com In reality is is a fraud that shows the genuine site in a iframe surrounded by the spammers advertising. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I removed it from de, fr and others yesterday. Another user removed it from here again today. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. --Hu12 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

sotogifts.net
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. --Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

achisite.com
Google AdSense iD: 8215017993255890 A. B. (talk • contribs) -- 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. No other users. --Hu12 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

irtoday.blogfa.com
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. No other users. --Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

buytubeviews.com
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. No other users. --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

wfalpha.com
Links has been added persistently to Wolfram Alpha article here and on sister projects with the poster pretending that it is a "short link" to wolframalpha.com In reality is is a fraud that shows the genuine site in a iframe surrounded by the spammers advertising. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 16:58, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

p.s. I removed it from de, fr and others yesterday. Another user removed it from here again today. --rannṗáirtí anaiṫnid (coṁrá) 17:00, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. --Hu12 (talk) 04:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

sotogifts.net
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:08, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. --Hu12 (talk) 04:32, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

achisite.com
Google AdSense iD: 8215017993255890 -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:35, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. No other users. --Hu12 (talk) 04:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

irtoday.blogfa.com
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. No other users. --Hu12 (talk) 04:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

buytubeviews.com
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:37, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. No other users. --Hu12 (talk) 04:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

expo.busiunion.com
—Preceding unsigned comment added by Hai398 (talk • contribs) 15:11, 10 July 2009


 * Accounts

<br


 * ✅ both spamming and edit warring.--Hu12 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The user was very persistent.--Hai398 (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

ehow.com
Per the discussion bellow, at, I believe ehow and it's video content are usefull for discussion discussion on talk pages. I do not feel confident enough to say that it should be included in every article. I think that could be discussed on a 1 for 1 basis depending on the articles. I do feel confident enough to say that ehow.com is somewhat similar to youtube and that it is should at least be permited for use on all Wikipedia's talk pages. Thank you for your consideration and in helping make Wikipedia an easier place to work. --CyclePat (talk) 22:28, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, see www.ehow.com/how_2055740_earn-money-ehow.html "how to earn money" ('spam incentive'!). That makes ehow significantly different from youtube. As talkpages can't be separated from main-space, I would see this as a major problem with this site. I suggest that this requests gets declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * That article you cite actually explains how authors can publish their articles and make money through ehow.com. Just because Wikipedia is free and utilizes free licences doesn't mean our sources/references need to be. In our current north american capitalist world there is nothing wrong with making money. In fact this is what "supposedly" makes the world go round according to many economists. Anyways, many peer-reviewed journals and other reliable sources charge a fee and make money. Also, I believe YouTube has similar videos. In fact, a search for "how to make money on Youtube" gives approx 313'000 hits. A particular example is this spam video. Another relevant example is the direct marketing Youtube does to promote the sales of songs as discussed in the article Click-to-Buy Expands to 8 New Countries. In some sort of reverse psychology, maybe we should consider blocking Youtube? (However, I would dissagree with this because a lot of primary information is quite usefull.) Similarly, ehow, has some interesting publications, in particular the video I mention regarding Proton but also please take a look at [www.ehow.com/how_4500597_calculate-average-kinetic-energy.html how to calculate average kinetic energy]. Though these links may not be authorative in nature they are interesting and usefullness for general discussion... and may even (under some odd circumstance) be considered for inclusion. I assume that throughout the analysis of this Spam-blacklist for ehow, that there may have been an error by too narrowly interpreting wikipedia's rules regarding WP:RS. --CyclePat (talk) 04:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Nah, that is not what I mean, and I did not know that about YouTube, it may be an extra reason to be extra careful with YouTube as well. Let me explain.
 * Information on these free hosting servers can indeed be fine (often is, though also often fails our reliable sources guideline, are often original research, information which is not verifyable, and they do often get spammed/pushed). That is as much true for geocities, blogspot and proboards as for Ehow. But if editors can create documents on these free servers, and set it up that on every followed link to their created page they earn money, then that may be (and has been) a reason to link to their information from Wikipedia (because Wikipedia is a highly visible site, having your links here results in people seeing those links, and hence following them). What even happens is that people create a crappy two-liner page, link it from as many places as possible hoping that people follow their links, giving them money. That results in that sites like Ehow (who actively promote this, and are set up for this principle!) are (significantly) 'worse' (in terms of 'bad faith COI spamming') than comparable free hosting servers (if you can create your document on geocities and link it, or create your document on Ehow, and link it, with the latter having the benefit that you earn some mone, what would the choice be? The former COI is more often in good faith than the latter). That is what I meant with a 'spam incentive'. That same is indeed also true for commercial sites, and that is what we see, some commercial sites (and also non-profit and other organisations) do try to 'use' Wikipedia to promote their organisation, and quite often they do get blacklisted. With sites like Ehow that gets put into the hands of the public, the man in the street can create his documents, and link them himself and earn money if he is lucky enough not to be noticed (I know, a bad faith assumption).
 * Now, you say, that YouTube has a similar thing, and this is possible with quite some sites. We call that 'referral spam', and we have a rule in our external links guideline that that should be avoided (rule 17). For many sites it is a matter of removing the referral part of the link (and we have blacklisted that possibility for some sites, and I recall a recent case where a spammer begged us to leave his referral link on a product for some time, as he needed the money). If YouTube (the company itself) is offering the service, then that might be a reason to blacklist YouTube.
 * So, if a site offers this service, built into their principles, then that would result in Wikipedia 'sponsoring' the people who have documents there, and it may result (and for some of these sites it did result) in quite some spamming (and sometimes with very angry 'spammers' who see their loss when we remove their links). I understand that this results in good faith additions being hampered, and extra work (through whitelisting) for the needed links, but I stand with my suggestion to decline this, and leave it to individual whitelistings for the really necessery information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I had a look at the spam video you linked. That is exactly what is meant with rule #17 in WP:ELNO, and yet another reason why redirect sites should be meta-blacklisted on sight (we even do on-IRC redirect detection, now I have seen this system, I may start working on auto-reporting this to the meta blacklist). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you Beetsra for you great answer. Well said. I think it makes sense and I really don't know what to say except to concede the fact that these things do happen. In all likelyness, your are probably correct that the chance of spam is a lot higher with ehow.com. Hence I concede, individual whitelisting (discussions) seems like a reasonable idea. On the side, I would just like to point towards the article Cervical dislocation. I've described within this article that Youtube has some videos on the subject matter (ie.: primary information). For ehow, I think this is less likely to happen but it could. Anyways, the only problem I see with a whitelist is that those who want to add the information will have to argue on the necessity of the information. Hopefully, those discussing the matter (us in the end line), don't get confused between the primary information (the fact that the website talks about this information) and the secondary information (the actuals facts from the website, which may not necessarilly meet the criteria for WP:RS). Best regards. --CyclePat (talk) 04:08, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Summary: (Please feel free to make changes to this summary/conclusion) The discussion above regarding the website ehow.com has lead to the conclusion that Given the nature of this website's direct "end-user" profit and ability for the same "end-user" to spam a link here on wikipedia, there is a strong likelyhood that this website will be miss-used. The comparison with similar websites, such as Youtube, or Geocities, which have different business plan but also make a profit, is different because they are at "arms lenght". The requestor withrew his request and agreed that future request regarding the website eHow.com, in most cases, should be defered to the whitelist. A "spam" comparison was made between eHow.com, YouTube.com and some other websites models where mentioned. Aside: Spam from such websites such as Youtube would need to be taken care of on an individual basis. --CyclePat (talk) 04:31, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

buddconf.sytes.net (1)
Is it possible somehow to whitelist (buddconf.sytes.net)? Its a Buddhist conference page filled with materials about Northern european buddhis history .Has nothing to do with commercials or so on. I even dont to whom to talk about it. I,m editing articles *Friedrich Lustig ,*Guhyasam?ja tantra ,*Karl Tõnisson, *The international conference „Buddhism and Nordland , *Alpo Ratia , and I need it for reference. VanemTao. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanemTao (talk • contribs) 07:12, 26 March 2009 (UTC) <!-Template:Unsigned -->
 * This has been requested and declined at the whitelist. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

buddconf.sytes.net (2)
Is it possible somehow to whitelist (buddconf.sytes.net)? Its a Buddhist conference page filled with materials about Northern european buddhis history Spam filter notice From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Jump to: navigation, search The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You will need to remove any instance of the blacklisted link in your text addition before you can save the page. Blacklists are maintained both locally and globally. Before proceeding, please review both lists to determine which one (or both) are affecting you. You can request help removing the link, request that the link be removed from the blacklist, or report a possible error on the local or global spam blacklist talk page. If you'd like to request that a specific link be allowed without removing similar links from the blacklist, you can request whitelisting on the local spam whitelist talk page. The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: buddconf.sytes.net Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blacklisted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by VanemTao (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 April 2009 <!-Template:Unsigned2 -->
 * If you want to remove the site from the blacklist entirely, please request it in the "proposed removals" above. To use just one or a few pages from the site, please request it in the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

sermonaudio.com
In articles about ministers, a link to their available online sermons seems perfectly reasonable and useful. Kyriosity (talk) 13:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * We've had a discussion here, and the consensus seems to be that it would be a useful addition to the article. Kyriosity (talk) 12:42, 8 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Do I need to give more information or something to get a response to this? If so, would somebody please let me know what else is needed? I've never encountered with this issue before, so I'm working blind here. Thanks! Kyriosity (talk) 13:24, 11 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The site was spammed, and is not actually useful in almost all the places it was linked. If there are isolated links which would be useful (and ina way which does not violate WP:NOR, which was also an issue before), then whitelisting would seem to be appropriate. Guy (Help!) 14:25, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

bollywoodhungama.com
Bollywood Hungama was recently added to the blacklist since spam bots were adding links to it to Bollywood movie articles. While the site should not be linked to in such a manner, it has a lot of legitimate use. I don't think it ever should have been added to the list, considering it has its own Wikipedia page and produces a lot of reliable information used heavily in references for Bollywood movies. Regarding this site, I do not believe User:A. B. followed steps 1, 2, or 3. There are still lots of references to the site in use all over Wikipedia. --Odie5533 (talk) 14:18, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm .. spambot? this looks different. This is totally disruptive, and as I see some SPA's on this link and indiafm.com ... hmm ... maybe this can go into abuse filter Special:AbuseFilter/107 or XLinkBot? I would certainly suggest to wait until another solution is implemented. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:56, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Here was the community's response prior to these domains' blacklisting:
 * 1.
 * 3 blocks and 10 warnings from 9 different editors
 * CambridgeBayWeather
 * Capricorn42
 * Edgar181
 * Fritzpoll
 * Jonathan Hall
 * Killiondude
 * MER-C
 * Oxymoron83
 * Sephiroth BCR
 * 2.
 * 5 blocks and 13 warnings from 9 different editors:
 * THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
 * Abecedare
 * Capricorn42
 * Closedmouth
 * Dreadstar
 * Efe
 * Jmundo
 * Lucasbfr
 * THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
 * User:DarkFalls
 * 3.
 * 9 warnings from 7 different editors:
 * Hqb
 * Islescape
 * Maelgwnbot
 * Mspraveen
 * Shovon76
 * THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
 * Tiggerjay
 * 4.
 * 3 blocks and 8 warnings from 7 different editors:
 * J.delanoy
 * Caknuck
 * Ironholds
 * THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
 * Geoff Plourde
 * Closedmouth
 * Allstarecho
 * Kafziel
 * 5.
 * 2 warnings from 1 editor:
 * Dekisugi
 * 6.
 * 17 warnings from 7 different editors:
 * Closedmouth
 * JaGa
 * NickBush24
 * RainbowOfLight
 * Someguy1221
 * THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
 * Tombomp
 * 7.
 * 7 warnings and 1 block from 4 different editors:
 * Oxymoron83
 * Piano non troppo
 * Anshuk
 * THEN WHO WAS PHONE?
 * 8.
 * 1 warning from 1 editor:
 * Backslash Forwardslash


 * Normally, we blacklist domains after the spammers have gotten 3 to 4 warnings -not 67 warnings and 12 blocks.


 * Given this person's persistence, I don't think XLinkBot will do much good. We may be better off whitelisting individual web pages as needed. As for removing the remaining links, the spam filter should allow editing the pages with links that pre-existed the domains' blacklisting. I think most of these were added by regular editors, so I did not remove them. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:29, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm .. I agree fully. Need I mention this is a XWiki case? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I've left a note at WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force inviting editors of our Bollywood articles to comment.-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:59, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

The spamming is very unfortunate and I think mars the reputation of an otherwise useful site. I looked at some FA and GA listed on WikiProject Films/Indian cinema task force, and here are the number of references that are to bollywoodhungama.com or indiafm.com: Is it possible to make an abuse filter to only allow autoconfirmed users to add the links? --Odie5533 (talk) 18:34, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Lage Raho Munna Bhai: 6/88 (FA)
 * Satyajit Ray: 0/75 (FA)
 * Preity Zinta: 9/121 (FA)
 * Dor (film): 8/36 (Good)
 * Ilaiyaraaja: 0/79 (Good)
 * Kareena Kapoor: 19/91 (Good)
 * Maybe this can go into abuse filter Special:AbuseFilter/107 ... A. B., how wide are these ranges, and how big is the chance that there are more ranges? --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Still need the ranges, I have them now too narrow. We are going to test Special:AbuseFilter/143 on this one. Consider removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Oh, XLinkBot should find any new ranges or socks, please block logged in spam user accounts immediately. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

FamousAmericans.net
This cite seems really good; I need it for a reference for the Benjamin Edes article I'm making. Google search benjamin edes; it's the first result; it's very non-spammy. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC) It's part of Virtualology.com, it's all about history and stuff; I have NO IDEA how this got blacklisted. Daniel Christensen (talk) 00:58, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
 * , and Administrators' noticeboard/Archive115. x42bn6 Talk Mess  14:42, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Economywatch.com
I would like to request whitelisting this site as it is updated daily with original articles on the economy worldwide. It has thousands of in-depth pages on the economy, economic terms, country profiles and much more. I don't know why it is blacklisted. It could be a valuable source of economics news, data, and explanation of terms if it were whitelisted. Thanks. Patro (talk) 04:50, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I would concur with this request. There was no reason associated with the blacklisting that I can find. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 19 April 2009 (UTC)


 * A quick MediaWiki search for "Economywatch.com" indicates this was one of a bunch of sites spammed:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct 2
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Aug an earlier complaint regarding related domains
 * Related discussions:
 * User talk:Beetstra/Archive 11
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/11
 * User talk:61.247.238.182


 * So this was one of a number of related sites that were spammed. The next question is how useful is it to this project? While the site "looks" reliable, there's no information as to who publishes it or what the editorial staff is other than the cryptic "Copyright © Stanley St Labs". Google News does not crawl Economywatch.com's pages. A Google web search turns up just 742 unique hits. A Google search on "Stanley St Labs" turns up a web developer in Singapore, not a news media company. The economywatch.com domain itself is for sale. Meanwhile, this AboutUs.org page seems to identify this domain with Compare Infobase in India. So I'm skeptical that this site is really a reliable source for any of our articles that meets WP:RS. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:26, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

This is Keith Timimi, one of the directors of Stanley St Labs, the new owner of EconomyWatch.com. I have recently come across this Whitelist discussion and I would like to make a few clarifications: 1. This site was originally developed by an Indian company called Compare Infobase. Although they had some excellent economists on their team, it also seems that they employed spam tactics to build links for EconomyWatch.com and other sites they developed 2. Stanley St Labs bought this domain is 2008, and have been actively working on it in 2009. The domain was erroneously shown as being still for sale, but that has been rectified 3. Stanley St Labs does not yet have an About Us page, but you can see the EconomyWatch.com About Us and Contact Us pages (I can't list the links), as well as the updated AboutUs.org page. We have a worldwide team of freelance economics journalists providing stories, together with a Chief Economist and writers in Singapore. 4. We have recently been approved by Google News and our news articles have started to get indexed 5. You will find approximately 18k 19k references to EconomyWatch.com in Google, as well as 9,000 10,000 pages indexed 6. We have been used as a reference resource quite widely, for example, the World Bank quoted our article here and here. Our Economic Statistics database is listed as a reference source by the Economics Network for academics. We have been referenced 15 times by Answers.com and 125 times by Yahoo Answers 7. In total, Google Webmaster Tools find 11,614 links to our site. Linkscape from SEOmoz.org lists (http://www.seomoz.org/linkscape/intel/basic/?uri=www.economywatch.com 5,041 links from 399 domains] to our homepage   8. Quantcast shows that we are averaging over 14k visitors per day    9. Although we agree that not all articles are referenceable, we believe that some articles are extremely valuable with original research, analysis and interviews, and that ultimately we should be white-listed so that editors can decide whether our information is valueable for that topic. For example, read the articles on Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Charity Economics and the Apocalypse Brigade, This Could Be Worse than the Great Depression, or Welcome To The Future of the World A Young Chinese Female with Six Pockets. Unfortunately I can't list these links for you (as the site is blacklisted), but please clcok through and read more :-) Thank you for taking time to read this, I would be happy to answer any more questions. KeithTimimi (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

www.cais-soas.com
I don't see why this site is blocked. I wanted to link to http://www.cais-soasFIXME.com/CAIS/History/hakhamaneshian/Cyrus-the-great/cyrus_cylinder_complete.htm which is a scholarly translation of an ancient document. There is something at WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/cais-soas.com but I can't understand form that what the problem is. Astarabadi (talk) 10:03, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * has details on why this is blacklisted. Stifle (talk) 17:31, 3 May 2009 (UTC)

www.tropical-towerwars.co.cc
I see no reason why this link is spam blacklisted apart from having the domain *co.cc at the end of it. I need to reference TONS of links (in-text citations) within the webpages of www.tropical-towerwars.co.cc in order to bring the notability and verifiability of this article: Tropical Towerwars up to standard, but am unable to do so. If *.co.cc needs to be blacklisted, please add an exception for tropical-towerwars.co.cc and tropical-towerwars.co.cc/* —Preceding unsigned comment added by TeBBuTT85 (talk • contribs) 16:35, 30 April 2009 (UTC) <!-Template:Unsigned -->
 * Some issues here... the site you wish to link to does not appear to meet the reliable sources guideline. Furthermore, we cannot establish notability by referencing the game's support and development forum. You need to find independent sources and reviews to establish notability for the game, which at this point may not even qualify for an article. --Ckatz chatspy  18:15, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the advice Ckatz, I can easily find many independent reviews and sources, (I plan to further 'buff' out the article), however my issue here is I still need a few references (at least ONE) to the OFFICIAL fully fledged website (which is much more than a support and development forum), and the site falls under a blacklisted pattern / domain. TeBB
 * TeBB, it looks like you have a conflict of interest from looking at your profile at tropical-towerwars.co.cc:
 * www.tropical-towerwars.co.cc/forum/index.php?action=profile;u=1
 * See our Conflict of Interest rules.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:26, 30 April 2009 (UTC)


 * FYI:
 * Articles for deletion/Tropical Towerwars
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:28, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Again, thank you for your comments, however you are missing the point. I have over 400 active members in the forum hosted as a side-section on our homepage, that can easily contribute to the article, (see discussion under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Tropical_Towerwars where I list tons of relevant independent sources and reviews) but the OFFICIAL website itself is blacklisted! How can you support blacklisting the official site URL/Domain as a source (or not even as a source, but just a MENTION) in the article? Surely it needs to appear somewhere? Its the official website for pete's sake. Even just as an "external" link at the bottom of the page. This section (page) on wikipedia is for discussing the blacklisting of URLs, not for debating the deletion of the article. Even if the article was removed, I could find another place where it could be 'merged' with another article for instance, in which case I would need a reference to the official site, but NO its blocked -_. Do you see my point? TeBBuTT85 (talk) 21:02, 30 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Notability is established through multiple third-party sources, rather than most coming from the official website (otherwise you'd pretty much be able to link anywhere you want on your own website and make a subject notable). If the AfD ends as Keep (which I doubt it will), then there may be grounds for whitelisting. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:23, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

www.co.cc
I understand user Ckatz is removing any and all co.cc domain names. If this is a misunderstanding, sorry in advance, if it is not then please consider the following: when co.cc domains are used in combination with byethost.com (and maybe other hosts as well) using the DNS option, there is actualy no way to get to the content of the page without using this domain name. In this case, all URLs of the page are shown as "yoursite.co.cc/directory/page.html". Working as a volunteer in Bolivia, I have noticed how websites tend to disappear, because DNS providers don't get paid. Please understand that a domain name for one year is worth roughly the equivalent of two to three weeks work for most people in this country. That is why all websites I made in Bolivia are under a .co.cc URL. It would be discrimination not to allow sites because they did not pay for their domain. I have noticed this problem after my website www.COROI.CO.cc about a tourist village in Bolivia was removed from the Coroico article. This is a semi-official page (supported by most people in the village), very relevant to the content of the mentioned article, it is accessible, and there is no reason why the link would die. On top of that it does "contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail [...]", and it got removed while two other links on the same page (from people who do pay for domain names!) didn't move, but do violate rulings 4, 5, and 13 of the 'Links normally to be avoided' section of the external links guidelines page. The quality and usefulness of this link is clearly shown by the relatively big number of people arriving to this site from Wikipedia, most of which used to visit 5 to 20 pages. I have also posted about this subject on the talk page about External Links and on the page of the user who removed the link Ckatz, as I did not know which was the most appropriate place. Joostschouppe (talk) 12:45, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't generally remove sites at the request of the site owner; see WP:COI. Wikipedia is not a tourism directory, either. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:37, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Though I may be the owner of www.COROI.CO.cc, I am most defenitly not the owner of www.CO.cc, so I would be grateful to hear about your view on co.cc sites in general. Also, even though Wikipedia is obviously shouldn't be a tourism directory, the link proved useful as shown above. Apart from being the owner of the site, I am also a human being with rational capabilities. I can't see how my above explanation suddenly would be less rational for me having something to do with the coroi.co.cc. Your comment shows how following the rules too strictly makes one irrational: not only did it allow you to ignore another human beings' point of view, it also made you ignore a part of the problem (the part about www.co.cc) which was not included by the rule you applied. See, following rules too strictly might gain you some time, it also makes you less thorough. Regards,Joostschouppe (talk) 14:02, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no compelling reason to unblacklist a domain that has been spammed abusively. If there are particular links that meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines and may be useful to the project at some point, uninvolved editors (not site owners) may petition to have them whitelisted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Do you mean that in fact the whole co.cc domain has spammed abusively? Would you blacklist .co.uk domains as well if they were used for spamming a lot? Are there any free domains you can recommend for third world communities with lack of funding, without them being banned indiscriminately from Wikipedia? (Sorry that I probably misunderstood you before) Joostschouppe (talk) 16:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
 * It has already been used to evade the blacklist, so it was added to the global blacklist on Meta. See . There may be legitimate uses for .co.cc addresses these can go onto the whitelist. x42bn6 Talk Mess 17:39, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Thank you for the clarification and the link. I understand the need to have .co.cc on a watchlist (though I don't agree with putting it on a blacklist), but as you accept that there are ligitimate uses for .co.cc, shouldn't users like Ckatz judge on .co.cc websites on a case-by-case basis, rather then just deleting them indiscriminately? Shouldn't content of the link have priority over URL?Joostschouppe (talk) 08:16, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * There are legitimate uses for many things, but if there are multiple cases where such an address is abused on Wikipedia, then the odds are it will be added. Sometimes, it gets to the point where a persistent spammer will pull off so many attempts to evade the blacklist that it simply is a lot easier to blacklist the parent URL and get on with doing something else. In some ways, it is a privilege, not a right, to have a link on Wikipedia. The same goes for the likes of sytes.net yes, there are legitimate uses for such URLs, but it's been abused so often it's better off to whitelist the good ones. x42bn6 Talk Mess 19:13, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I really appreciate your time and effort to explain the Wikipedia policy and I do understand it a bit better now. What I still do not understand, however, are Ckatz's motivations. I understand he has an issue with my way of dealing with things here, but what he says below seems imply there was another reason to delete my site, apart from it being a co.cc domain. I have as asked him to explain this point, but that hasn't happened so far (it is important to know this, so once someone else proposes to unblacklist it, it isn't blacklisted again for this unclear reason). I understand that having an external link on Wikipedia is not a right, but I think it should  be a right to know exactly why a site has been deleted. That said, I still don't agree with a policy that implies deleting the only complete website about a subject, but does allow marginally relevant commercial websites. Joostschouppe (talk) 07:35, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Comment: Joostschouppe, no disrespect intended to your site, but I've an issue with the manner in which you are attempting to get it listed on Wikipedia especially since you seem determined to (incorrectly and unfairly) describe my actions. You have posted comments about my edits with regards to ".cc" links that include "deleting them indiscriminately", "deleting all .co.cc domains, without considering other factors", and "probably did not take the time to study the relevance of the link". I'd really appreciate it if you would avoid making such unfair and uninformed statements about your fellow editors (as you've done here, at User talk:Angus.ireland and at Talk:Coroico). Further to this, now that you have added a link to the WikiTravel article on Coroico (which has an existing link to your site), there wpould appear to be less of a need to add one here. --Ckatz chatspy  17:39, 7 May 2009 (UTC) From the explanation I had from other people, see above, I don't know how the comments you cite would not be valid, and I would be happy to know what exactly is the policy here? Why exactly then, has my site been blacklisted? I agree that the need for the link to my site is less pressing now I've put up the link to the Wikitravel, but that doesn't mean I am any less puzzled about what has happened. Neither is it an argument for having blacklisted co.cc/my page in the first place. Joostschouppe (talk) 20:59, 7 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry if I have offended you. I was enraged and impatient. I just thought your behaviour was unjust. The assumptions I have made would not have been made if you had clarified (on the discussion page for the Coroico article) why you were removing the link.

eHow.com
www.ehow.com/video_4766666_why-does-proton-have-charge.html Seem quite a compelling video to me. I wanted to use at talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medice) but I couldn't because it's blacklisted. Why would we blacklist such a good quality video. At least let us use it on the talk pages, (putting perhaps a warning beside it that says this link is blacklisted and will not be able to be used in the article). I think that would be easier for contributors. Also, this kind of feals like if we blacklisted it because there are couple bad apples in the bunch... take for example Youtube, you wouldn't block that wouldn we? Why? I would even move as far to remove ehow from the black list. --CyclePat (talk) 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Please list this in the right section. If you want to permit just this page, you need MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. If you want to permit the entire site, list above under "proposed removals". Stifle (talk) 13:57, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

channeldb2.com
I would like to get channeldb2.com unblocked. This is community site for IBM DB2 database users. Over 1000 members, about 300 videos, most of them educational. 88.102.83.205 (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is blacklisted at meta; you'll need to list it at m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

www.Bukisa.com
I would like to request that Bukisa.com be removed from the list. Articles written there on a variety of topics are hand screened to make sure they aren't spam. Bukisa has been widely covered in the media (Mashable article: http://mashable.com/2008/11/04/bukisa/ Reuters article/press release: http://www.reuters.com/article/pressRelease/idUS203271+12-Nov-2008+PRN20081112) and is a site with legitimate content. I'm not sure why it was blocked to begin with, so it's hard for me to argue why it should be reinstated. BlackWalker (talk) 13:38, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This was blocked for spamming; see . Stifle (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

humansfuture.org
Domain:
 * Original blacklist discussion: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2009
 * First attempt for delisting (April 2009): MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/June 2009
 * Google Adsense ID: 2308142672702832
 * Google Adsense ID: 2308142672702832

--- Hello, We would like to get our website unblocked from wikipedia. The website is of a unique nature and rich content, it conducts a broad range of programs and activities to promote an understanding of the factors in the social, genetic, biological, medical, physiological and technological fields that may have an impact on the future of mankind. It is also a well designed website, attractive to visitors and its ranking and traffic is getting higher quickly. It would be greatly appreciated if you just allow us to add it as an external link beside futurewikia on this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future Thank you --Xhuman (talk) 16:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC) Comment Having had to deal with this site in the past, I am strongly opposed to delisting. The site was repeatedly spammed to a series of articles through the use of a series of deceptive methods. Site proponents have employed a series of one-off sockpuppets (inculding the accounts Wiki4ata,Megamedoa, Mindosis, and Hypotime) to spam a series of pages such as Future, Extropianism, and Eugenics. They also used a series of redirect URLs to avoid the blacklisting, which incidentally led to our discovery of the ".co.cc" redirect service. Beyond that, the "humansfuture" site offers no real benefit to Wikipedia; it does not appear to meet the reliable sources requirements for use as a reference, and it has no real benefit as a stand-alone link, other than to promote a site that has demonstrated its desire to use Wikipedia for promotional purposes. --Ckatz chatspy  17:47, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Ok, lets take Futurewikia as an example, it is the only external link on the page

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Future
 * Futurewikia homepage is just a group of links and advertisements, it is not a stand alone link and it is not even reliable as ANYONE can edit that site without being revised for long time, so why is it approved as external link here??


 * On the other hand, our website contains scientific and speculative articles for famous writers and futurists including John Glad, Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom.


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nick_Bostrom


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Glad


 * http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ray_Kurzweil


 * In addition to that, no one can edit the website except its team and the website is PR3 in google with more than 1000 pages linking back to it, (use yahoo explorer to check if you want), So after all that, how did you exactly decide that our website is of no value ?? --Xhuman (talk) 18:43, 23 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Past history, no indication that the site is distinct from dozens of other sites with similar interests, no indication that the attempts to spam links will cease, and no interest in adding links by anyone other than people directly connected with the site. Simply put, Wikipedia is not a directory service. --Ckatz chatspy  19:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually our website is different and it is one of the few websites which discuss such a topic, just do a little search with google for "future human evolution" and see by your self how many websites of the same nature are there. I dont know how can I prove to you that spamming will not happen again, but I guess that is not a problem as you can blacklist it again by few magical clicks :)  I know that wikipedia is not a directory service, but there are many articles here which require some good external links for the benefit of the readers who might want to be involved in certain activities which is not provided by wikipedia.   Our website is good, reliable and well made, it deserves a chance just like the so many websites listed on wikipedia despite their old and poor quality.   so, please remove our site from the blacklist to allow it to get its chance and to allow the readers to benefit from it.   --Xhuman (talk) 20:39, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We rarely delist at the request of the site owner, and your arguments are not compelling. The spamming history is just the icing on the cake. When you say, "allow the readers to benefit from it"; we're not stopping anyone from reading it. Wikipedia isn't an advertising venue. OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:52, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Fisrt of all I am not the site owner, I am just a member of its team and the spamming was just a mistake of another ignorant member. It is unfair to block the site because of someones mistake while others have nothing to do with what happened. Finally I know you are not stopping anyone from reading it, what I ment was to allow MORE readers to reach it and benefit from it. There must be someway to solve this out, please guide me to do the right steps to unblock the website. --Xhuman (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No. Consider the matter closed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:18, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Matter closed ??? No, this is unfair and this is not over yet. You delisted so many websites after long debats here. We need to know why are you biased against our website since the begining. It is not just some amateur site that you simply decide to block or not. If some ignorant person spammed it in the past then you should block the spammer only, not a whole website of good effort and content. --Xhuman (talk) 11:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
 * There is no way for us to know for sure who did the spamming.


 * As for the website's reliability as a source, that pertains to reputation. Its reputation with us has been badly damaged by the spamming incidents.


 * What we need is verification that information on the website is reliable and authentic. If you were to cite reliable sources (Newsweek, NY Times, National Geographic, etc.) that reported that the notable authors you mentioned actually did contribute articles to your site (along with the articles' titles or urls), you would have the beginning of a case. For example, have the authors themselves mentioned the articles in any published or recorded interviews? Or have the articles been mentioned in any newspapers or magazines (or on their websites)? Bibliographies of the authors' works, published by a reliable source, would also work (if the articles on your website were included).


 * But you would still need to present 3rd-party sources concerning the factual accuracy of the scientific material on your site, and for the other material, concurrence that it is representative of the subject. Authorship would also need to be verified by sources (i.e., reviewed without the authorship of the staff-written material being challenged by claims of plagiarism). Worthy sources for these could include reviews in newspapers or magazines, or in the publication of some other respected reviewing organization. Has your web-site been widely reported or reviewed?


 * Has the website won any industry awards for the quality of its reporting? Has it been certified by a professional association? Who besides the website's staff recognizes the website as a reliable source? (This recognition must be published in a reliable source, of course).


 * We need evidence of reliability.


 * Good luck.


 *  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   21:16, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Actually the website is not just scientific, it is more speculative in nature, so how can references be provided for such a type of speculative articles ?? I have already mentioned above that these articles were written by famous writers and futurists including John Glad, Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom. Also there are more than 1000 pages linking back to the website including big trusted sites, for example : The famous site about.com linked to us here And the trusted scientific site redorbit.com linked to us here These were just some examples but there are even more. The thing is we are not asking the wikipedians to link to our website now, we just want it to be at least unblocked to make it possible for the website to be used someday on wikipedia in a good way, thats all. --Xhuman (talk) 11:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Xhuman, you just repeated yourself from here, without addressing the points I raised above. It appears that you are trying to evade the issue of references.


 * I have 3 questions for you:


 * Question #1: Can you prove (by providing references to published sources) that John Glad, Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom wrote articles on the website?


 * Question #2: You said that the website was not just scientific, which means it does state some scientific facts. Can you provide references in published sources that state that the website's reporting of scientific facts is accurate?


 * Question #3: Can you provide references that the remaining material is authentic? That is, not copied from anywhere? In other words, the stuff without bylines whose opinions or speculations are those, and where is the proof of that published?


 * What I want to know is what reputable sources have fact-checked your site. I look forward to your answers to my questions above.


 *  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   18:41, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * If it needs to be used someday on Wikipedia in a good way, then I am sure that the editor who wants to do that can ask for de-listing here, with a strong case as they can show how the site could be of actual use. Until then, . --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:10, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The spammer was an editor here and all his/her edits were declined.


 * A previous proposal by some other editors in April 2009 was declined.


 * I am an editor here and I have already showed my case above but my propsal was also declined.


 * So what kind of editors exactly are you talking about ?????


 * --Xhuman (talk) 16:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Those that give actual examples which add information to our wiki (which may include yourself). The site was abused, we only can assume that that has stopped now, and until now you (or others) don't make a case what it adds to our wiki. You have only shown that there were other links which you think do not follow our policies/guidelines (see WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS), and say that it is only to mkae it possible for the website to be used someday on wikipedia in a good way. I am sorry, but all of that is not good enough. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Xhuman, we're talking about an editor who wants to put a specific link on a specific article to achieve a specific result with respect to improving the article and serving Wikipedia's readers. You have not submitted a specific proposal. But it is too early for a specific proposal, because the website has been deemed unreliable. You've got to fix that problem first. See my 3 questions above.  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   18:20, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

OK, I cann't link to any of the pages which prove my case because the website is blocked, so I am sorry for posting the links in plain text. Here are the scientific studies and the methodologies which our spectulations were based on, of course with references at the bottom of each page This page shows the conferences and lectures which had been accessed by the website team Here are few samples of the website scientific articles with their references down pages Here is a sample of an article written by John Glad Here is a sample of an article written by Ray Kurzweil I think this is enough to fix the reliability problem, right ? --Xhuman (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * www.humansfuture.org/methodology_website_learning_methodology.php.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/future_studies_methodologies.php.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/future_world_future_society.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/future_the_future_of_homo_sapiens.php.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/genetic_engineering_physical_attraction.php.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/artificial_intelligence_tutorial.php.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/genetic_engineering_mapping_human_genome.htm
 * www.humansfuture.org/nanotechnology_dangers_and_defenses.htm
 * No.


 * The site can't do that for itself. Only respected 3rd-party publishers can, by what they've printed about the site.


 * www.humansfuture.org's reputation depends upon its standing in the publishing world, that is, by what other publishers in the field have reported about it in print.


 * What is the Washington Post's opinion of www.humansfuture.org?


 * How about Harvard, or Yale? What have they published about the site?


 * What has the World Future Society said about www.humansfuture.org? (in print)


 * Who (besides www.humansfuture.org) has published reviews critiquing www.humansfuture.org?


 * In what respected publications has www.humansfuture.org been quoted, excerpted, or reprinted in?


 * The impression I'm getting is that www.humansfuture.org doesn't have an established reputation.


 * You seem to be trying to establish the site's reputation by providing it with exposure through Wikipedia, or trying to get the site's traffic up.


 * That's not what Wikipedia is for.


 * That's why we have an anti-spamming department.


 * Spamming violates WP:SPAM, WP:COI, WP:POV, WP:NOTDIR, and probably many other policies and guidelines.


 *  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)


 * E.g. the last one is a nice one (www.humansfuture.org/nanotechnology_dangers_and_defenses.htm). Why not link to a) the original that is named at the bottom, or b) to Kurzweil's own copy, which is, unlike this copy, properly referenced? For the forelast (www.humansfuture.org/genetic_engineering_mapping_human_genome.htm) the story is similar (though the site that I found hosting a copy may not even have the copyrights proper, but at least it is complete!) .. oh wait, I found the original, why not link that. Do I have to check the others as well? --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I didnt get your point Beetstra !! but as far as I know, having a copy of some scientific matrials doesnt harm the reliability of any website. The whole wikipedia is actually a copied matrial from everywhere, does that make it unreliable site ??? Oh, by the way I want everyone here to check the external links on these 2 wikipedia pages, just to show you how unfair it is to blacklist our website while allowing such a huge number of poor sites to be posted there without being checked for the so called reliabilty. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Futurology http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outline_of_transhumanism --Xhuman (talk) 17:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * We are limited to solving one problem at a time. We are currently focusing on www.humansfuture.org.


 * We can't lower our standards just because there are other problems we haven't gotten to yet.


 * In case you hadn't noticed, we are spread pretty thin. But we are doing our best.


 * Personally, I'm operating on the assumption that this proceeding will set an example for future proceedings to follow.


 * Previously, you implied that John Glad, Ray Kurzweil and Nick Bostrom wrote articles specifically for www.humansfuture.org. Instead, you appear to be in violation of WP:ELNEVER.


 * According to Beetstra above, the copy of Kurzweil's article isn't even as good as the original.


 * The site doesn't appear to pass WP:ELNO, #1.


 * Also, in asking me to help you in this discussion, presumably to sway it in your favor, you violated WP:CANVASS.


 * I can't support delisting at this time. My recommendation is to keep it filtered.


 *  Th e Tr ans hu man ist   19:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok you guys I give up, we trust you wikipedians and we are sure that you do what you think it is the best for the readers here, so keep the good work up and of course keep our awful website blocked. --Xhuman (talk) 20:43, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. Stifle (talk) 11:47, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Please dont close this discussion, we are working on getting some awards and reviews for the website and by the way google have just updated our pagerank to 4, does that count for anything here :)  --Xhuman (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

ciquestudios.com
Request for whitelisting this ad-free website. It hosts a community podcast about the open-source project Blender. Ielsner (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
 * This is blacklisted at meta; see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/ciquestudios.com. If you want to request its removal from the list entirely, you need m:talk:Spam blacklist; to request that one or a few specified pages be permitted for use here, you need MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 11:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Lyricsmode.com
We deleted page lyricsmode.com/about/wikipedia.php, which encouraging people to spam and all about it. \blyricsmode\.com\b # Mr.Z-man # encouraging people to spam www.lyricsmode.com/about/wikipedia.php Please, unblock Lyricsmode.com domain name. — Iopt (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Adsense pub-9668622095784709
 * Spam Articles
 * Lyricsmode.com
 * LyricsMode
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * . Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' or operators' requests. 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. There seems to be no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers, so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). In addition, this site also fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. --Hu12 (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

www.prophecyfilm.com
Please remove the blacklist of prophecyfilm.com. It has 16 languages so far about the same historic person's complete works and is about 1000 pages, and this person had many councils with the popes that reigned durign the great schism, but she did also meet with the royalty of Europe, mostly France, Germany, Italy, Sweden (her home country), Naples, Spain and a few more. She was also negotiating in the 100 year war sending councils to the kings through swedish or Northern clerics. The works on the site has alot of encyclopedic content and should not be blacklisted when someone takes the time and has the knowledge to make articles or add to existing ones. If someone has spammed a website, then that person should be warned, without a website suffering damage. For competitors to a website could if they knew this practice start spamming their competition just to get rid of them. This does not seem right? This site also has alot of christian prayers in many languages, (dont know exactly though how many?) and will probably be added sooner or later to articles about the history of the specific prayer or the article about the prayer. I hope I have written clear enough, ( Im from Sweden so my english is not perfect) Peace! Saintbridget (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC) Excuse me, I am unlearned about these things, does that mean that I for example can make editions and add this link but all new users that register here on wiki or those unregistered can never add this link to articles? Someone told me that this blacklist can make the site disappear from search engines and so on, I will show what he said: From an admin helping me: Well for one, when google or other search engines next crawls the blacklist it may knock down that website in its search ranking results, so watch out for that happening. Once google views a website as a possible spam site it is very hard to get google to change its mind. I think also that any further addition of the link triggers a spam alert which results in its auto-removal but could be wrong. Me writing again: I read something about this linkbot being a stepway to: XLinkBot can also serve as a good "step-up" or "step-down" from the Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist, allowing time to see if the URL continues to be abused. This practice seems highly unfair and should be reviewed, dont you think? Or am my english too bad to understand what this means? Does this mean that anyone can spam a site here and then by that deed blacklist a site or even several sites? Lets hope not to many people finds this out. So is this link we are talking about blacklisted or something in the middle, its hard to understand? Will it jump to different pages or whatever he says. Lets hope it moves out of blacklist so the other 15 languages can do something with the articles too. All too technical this stuff. Peace and thanks for all coaching so far! Saintbridget (talk) 21:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * This is on User:XLinkBot's list, so it can be added by any established user but not by new users. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

www.techdriveblog.co.cc
Please remove this amazing blogging site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jordanperkins (talk • contribs) 18:01, 8 July 2009 (UTC) <!-Template:Unsigned -->
 * Why? Stifle (talk) 10:53, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * agree with Stifle, why? Blogs are Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

ningbolife.com ningboexpat.com
is a non spamming and non-aggressive website of the Ningbo Foreign community. No spam or any attacks come form this site. There should be no reason for blacklisting the site. If any doubts you can discuss with me. Thank you. NingboExpat (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't know of any history of spam from this domain, but I've recently reverted several edits by User:NingboExpat that violated a slew of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including some quite blatant spam. Diffs here and here. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

is a non spamming and non-aggressive website providing the Expat and local community with news and information from approved and validated sources. No spam or any attacks come form this site. There should be no reason for blacklisting the site. If any doubts you can discuss with me. Thank you. NingboExpat (talk) 09:18, 8 July 2009 (UTC)
 * See my note above regarding ningbolife.com. Wyatt Riot (talk) 06:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Also spams the sites;


 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Clear abuse. Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them, or in response to site-owners' requests(User:NingboExpat). 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, 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) when there are no reasonable alternatives available--Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Objection first there can be repeated violation as NingboExpat is registered with Wiki since 7/72009, so how can there be a history. second the fact that sites have common links, as we naturally have here in the foreign community, which does not mean spamming. I clearly see here a miss interpretation. Each and All sites listed above are independant. We are even competing in some way. Helloningbo and Ningboguide are also commercial sites and competing to each other. So how can there be spam?? Need a simple English explanation. NingboExpat (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2009 (UTC) By the way did a check up on the above so called also spamming list 1.st most tools are not working! second there is no such website as ningboguide1.com. So what is the game about?? NingboExpat (talk) 00:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, given the evidence and conflict of interest. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 00:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Is it that you are asking to get a letter issued by the governmental authorities, that we are an legal existing organization? Just let me know.Die Sache mit dem Conflict of interest hatte ich ja schon beantwortet. NingboExpat (talk) 06:58, 10 July 2009 (UTC) By the way the evidence is showing that there is NO spam QUOTE I don't know of any history of spam from this domain, but I've recently reverted several edits by User:NingboExpat that violated a slew of Wikipedia policies and guidelines, including some quite blatant spam. and the name of the the only existing websites listed is real. It looks like a poor judgment from the first spam complaint done. May someone is honest enough to check the sites and see that they are no spam sites.NingboExpat (talk) 07:09, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
 * Also . If an established user feels that this site is appropriate for linking from Wikipedia and requests it, the request will then be considered. Stifle (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =

not even sure if this is where i say about this
I tried to correct an external link from the [Forfar Athletic] page as the one there would direct people to some search thing and when i tried to post the correct link http://talk. to/loons it said it was blacklisted (put a space in between the link as it wouldnt let me post it) Loon828 (talk) 10:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
 * talk.to is a redirect site, and therefore globally blacklisted. But before you want to insert the invisionfree blog the shortener is linking to, you might want to read the external links guideline. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)