MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2010

= Proposed Additions =

gibnet.com

 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/gibnet.com
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/gibnet.com

Please see discussion at the WP:RSN board here. The examples I provided there are:


 * At Disputed status of Gibraltar this clearly partisan page is being used as a reference
 * On numerous pages, this clearly partisan page ("The Struggle Continues...") is appearing in External Links
 * On several pages, this appears as a reference - a piece of original research which is totally unreferenced.
 * This page (note the "no 2 id" logo) is being used as a reference at Identity document

This is the personal site of User:Gibnews, who has been adding many of these links. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)


 * This is part of an agenda by the above editor who wants to remove sources of information about Gibraltar in order to rewrite wikipedia pages 'his way'.


 * Gibnet.com is NOT a personal website, it is a long running repository of information about Gibraltar and the documents section contains original documents which are not readily available elsewhere on the internet.


 * The above editor makes a lot about the page The campaign for the Eurovote Yes it was a long struggle, it took ten years, the article on gibnet.com lists the history in chronological order in a neutral manner listing references for everything described. I am not sure how this can be described as 'partisan'


 * In relation to the article [[http://www.gibnet.com/fish/waters.htm RH says this is unreferenced this is an outright lie as the article cites the UN convention on the law of the sea, and the map shown is sourced from the House of Commons library and cited as such.


 * The article on ID cards explores the fact that Gibraltar is the ONLY British territory which issues ID cards that are valid as travel documents in the EU. It contrasts the system in Gibraltar to the proposed one in the UK and has a link to the NO2ID site.  The article is of general interest and I fail to see why RH is making a fuss about it.


 * The majority of links to this site have been included by other editors as it is a long running stable site for reference documents about Gibraltar on the Internet. Google lists some 22,100 hits for gibnet.com


 * RH has tried unsuccessful to get another website banned, gibnews.net simply on the basis that I designed it. This is another attempt at the same. He has now informed me he intends to delete any links to gibnet.com on wikipedia BEFORE any decision has been taken and before I have been able to counter his attack. This is harassment. --Gibnews (talk) 09:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, I do think that most of your arguments are not to the point, or not true: yes, you did add most of the links to gibnews.net, and are only second after ClueBot (who I am not giving credit for 'thoughtful insertions' of external links) for gibnet.com; and 22.100 hits on Google is not a figure that impresses (see WP:GOOGLE), it may be a figure that tells that it is of interest, but may just as well be a product of clever search engine optimization. Fact remains, it is basically an unreliable source containing practically user-supplied non-reviewed material.

However, I do not see large scale, uncontrollable abuse, I see Gibnews adding (by far) most of the links, but also some regulars who seem to have used it. I would therefore suggest, that the remaining links are cleaned, having a careful look whether they are suitable where they were placed or not, and remove which are not suitable. Gibnews, I would suggest that you are careful with further additions, and discuss inclusions (especially when they get challenged), but preferably before inclusion. As such, I would suggest to mark this one as for now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:24, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for looking at it. Any page being linked to which is not a copy of a press release from a RS I will delete. Anything which is a press release from a RS and which is being used properly as a primary source, I will leave, giving Gibnews the benefit of the doubt that he has transcribed it accurately. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 15:34, 18 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Nobody has suggested you do that, A formal complaint will follow any such action. --Gibnews (talk) 19:05, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews, it is in my suggestion: 'I would therefore suggest, that the remaining links are cleaned, having a careful look whether they are suitable where they were placed or not, and remove which are not suitable.'. Cleaning thus involves anything that fails WP:RS (taking into concern how the source is used and its reliability), WP:EL (see the list at WP:ELNO), &c. Seen that this site is not a reliable source, discussion about the suitability is in order, and where necessary, remove the links/references which are disputable, and discuss before re-adding is thé way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:30, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think the discussion on the reliability of gibnet.com was sufficiently detailed or robust and it is skewed by a particular editor with an agenda which has been forum shopped. What follows deleting references is removing content which is unsourced. Then rewriting things according to the minority POV of that editor. At present I have very little time to devote to wikipedia. --Gibnews (talk) 13:20, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I'd like you to assume good faith, seeing the WP:RS discussion, I see several editors. Yes, when content is sourced to an unreliable source, then actually, the content should go with the unreliable source.  What you deem a minority POV .. yours  does not become a majority POV because there is some unreliable info about it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:27, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * While assuming good faith, Gibnews, you may also wish to stop spreading falsehoods about my intentions and dispense with the persecution complex. As I posted on your talk page, I am replacing uses of your site with reliable sources.  Your claims that your site contains content not to be found elsewhere is hogwash, frankly.  e.g. .  Only time has prevented me from replacing all the links.  Why you had to, for example, link to your site instead of the Government of Gibraltar's for the text of the constitution, I do not know.  Perhaps a clue lies on the first version of your user page, where you told us  I registered gibnet.com because .gi did not exist and built it up into a popular site, Alexa ranks it 534,737th. as websites go.   The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 23:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)


 * No, you are deleting all links to gibnet.com even where there are no alternative sources. That is an obsession. Other editors have noted your behaviour borders on abusive. You tried to get me banned by stating that I was a sock of a banned user on and unsuccessfully tried to claim gibnews.net was an unreliable source to get that banned. I note the determination and forum shopping. I have NO problem in replacing a link to the Gibraltar constitution from gibnet.com to the Government site however at the time the link was created the document was not online elsewhere.


 * Yes, gibnet.com IS a popular site, it was popular before Wikipedia took off and it still contains a lot of reference material that is not available elsewhere. For example the observers report on the 2002 referendum where 99% of Gibraltarians voted against joint sovereignty - something that you seem to want to deny. It is not a personal or a company site its more a Gibraltar portal with mini-sites and unbiased reference material.


 * I see that traffic from wikipedia amounts to 0.03% of the referrals to gibnet.com so I really don't think that removing links will make much difference to that site, although the reverse is not necessarily true because there will be a lot of missing citations. --Gibnews (talk) 11:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Citations should be to the original source, not to copies of whose copyright status we can't be sure. If this is the original source then they should not be citations as it appears not to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 12:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)


 * Gibnews, if the site is deemed unreliable, and that is what I would conclude from the WP:RS discussion, then 'deleting all links to gibnet.com even where there are no alternative sources' is unfortunately a way to go. If the reference is not reliable, and there are no alternatives, then how do we know if it is true.  Also, if there are things linked which are only available from your site, and nowhere else, then that does not mean we do have to link to your site.  Name the official source, then everyone can check if it is correct, the link is handy, but not needed (and especially when we are not sure if the copyright status is unsure, or other scenarios where the status is unsure).  And again, whatever rankings or statistics you take, those say nothing.  Is it clever search engine optimization, or is it really a popular site.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:16, 22 February 2010 (UTC)


 * I really don't think the issue of it being a reliable source has been explored sufficiently robustly and the discussion is skewed by a particular editor with a HUGE bias almost as large as mine. However where the site presents original documents which are not available anywhere else 'as is' I think its valid to include a reference rather than have material removed because there is no reference available.


 * As stated the site is not a personal website or a company website but a repository of information which has been going a long time and has a high reputation, sufficient that its included in the UK National Archive of websites. Where there are references to, for example the Gibraltar Government website, that is obviously preferred. However they recently reworked their site and changed most of the links and do not have the same policy of preserving links, particularly with their press release archive.


 * To answer your question, Some care has gone into the front page of gibnet.com to make it friendly to search engines. Apart from the index page no effort whatsoever has gone into promotion because the site is a not-for-profit venture to present information about Gibraltar. Nor for that matter does it get any subsidy from the Tourist office etc. The idea of linking to data held there in wikipedia is to make Wikipedia better and not to 'promote' the site. As stated the site grew out of a BBS system which held a large number of files, some of which were of sufficient interest to continue onto the net.


 * More recently the world and his dog has had a go at producing similar sites with Gibraltar content, they mostly fold after a year. Links come and go, indeed as an editor pointed out the article on Gibraltar contains a large number of links which are dead and point to ceased sites -or- ones which have changed their structure. --Gibnews (talk) 16:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * As has been mentioned before, there were several editors (including myself) who agree on the RS talk page that the site does not meet Reliable Sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Gibnews is adding his site back. Any posting by me on his talk page will be ignore and/or deleted so can someone else please give him a warning? I suggest if he does this again, it should be blacklisted. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 18:11, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This sort of thing is exactly what the blacklist is for, because the problem self-evidently won't go away. Without reference to the content of the site in question, the fact that the person controlling it is editing here to add additional links to it when others have said that's a problem really seems like an open-and-shut case. — Gavia immer (talk) 03:09, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Another readdition, this time by a one-edit anon IP. . Highly suspicious if you ask me. The Red Hat of Pat Ferrick t 12:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * The linking by Gibnews was clearly inappropriate, and against the suggestions given above (it is a scan of a document that was linked to ..). I have left Gibnews a message to that effect.  The IP seems an (until now) SPA, if more pop up, or if this one continues after being properly informed of the issue, I amend my remark above that 'I do not see large scale, uncontrollable abuse', and will proceed in blacklisting.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:27, 23 February 2010 (UTC)


 * For the avoidance of doubt the ONLY edits I have done are under my username and not with an IP. The IP used seems to be NTL Infrastructure - Lewisham with a client of cust47.bmly.cable.ntl.com which is neither a proxy and most certainly not me.  --Gibnews (talk) 15:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

surf.to
A free address forwarding site similar to dynip.

Ridernyc (talk) 00:10, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * URL shorteners go to the global blacklist, so MER-C 04:56, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Done at Meta, this can be archived. Guy (Help!) 14:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

7les.com
Per this is being used by vandals (in this particular case, User:Wallflowers98, see WP:LTA/WF98) to avoid edit filters. 7les appears to be a URL shortening service. TinyURL is blocked, so it only seems logical that 7les is as well. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:12, 15 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: I have instead brought this to the meta blacklist as it has come to my attention that URL shortening services should go there instead. -- Sh i r ik ( Questions or Comments? ) 21:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

shareflare.net

 * full link being added = shareflare.net/download/9704.9b2998f5ebd88036d96dbbd7b/Borland_Turbo_Cpp_v3.rar.html
 * see also: Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM
 * see also: Wikipedia_talk:WPSPAM


 * accounts

Persistent spamming of link onto same set of articles by multiple IP accounts (each are SPAs). The link being added is a file-sharing site with a prominent PayPal payment request to download files. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:17, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Note: spamming is also appearing in de, fr, nl, it, es, zh, and ro. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)
 * ✅, though it might be a good idea to propose it at meta as well. OhNo itsJamie Talk 09:45, 23 March 2010 (UTC)


 * heh, I just did that, see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/shareflare.net. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

Romania-Vacations
specifically: Romania-Vacations.com

This is a blog written by the locals in order to help visitors to find a more comprehensive resource on visiting Romania. It does NOT have a commercial purpose but an informative one, so listing this website on the spam list is absurd. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanweissenburg (talk • contribs) 13:45, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Romania-Vacations.com isn't blacklisted here, but rather on the meta blacklist, which is used for links added to many different projects rather than only English Wikipedia. If you want to ask for the link to be removed, that's the place to do so. — Gavia immer (talk) 20:19, 7 March 2010 (UTC)


 * , normally it would be defer but there is no realistic chance of whitelisting. Guy (Help!) 19:25, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

10bet.com
specifically: 10bet.com, for use in the entry 10bet

My name is Nitzan Moshe and I ‘m a part of 10Bet.com and I’m writing on behalf of the CEO Shalom Meckenzie; A few days ago after reviewing the bookmaker entry and evaluating it, I posted an entry about 10bet and linked it to/and from the bookmaker entry, when I tried to link to the site I found out that it’s in Wikipedia’s black list, I don’t understand why – because I think that as a well respectable online sportsbook that operates in the UK, it should be an integral part of the bookmaker entry, and from following reasons: In light of these facts I believe that 10bet should be included in Wikipedia's White List.NitzanM (talk) 07:26, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
 * 10bet is licensed to operate in the UK and regulated by the UK Gambling Commission
 * As a part of the trusted legal bookmakers- 10bet is a member of |IBAS].
 * It has a seniority of 7 years in betting, and about 5 years in the online betting scene.
 * Thousands of players attend the site every month and it has over a half a million registered users from all over the world. From the UK alone the site has over 100,000 registered users.
 * It handles a various range of online bookmaking as fit to a well respectable site.
 * Every person who is interested in betting at 10Bet is checkout: that he is over 18 years of age and from a country that enables betting.
 * . Your request does not address the reasons for blacklisting andwe typically do not remove sites at the request of their owners. Wikipedia users in good standing may request whitelisting of individual links. You personally should not be editing that article or any other article where you have a conflict of interest. Guy (Help!) 12:20, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

NEFAC.net
specifically: www.nefac.net/drupal6/index.php, for use in the entry NEFAC

It is an article about NEFAC, customarly we offer links to the source in articles about organizations. Having researched the blacklist, it appears it was blocked at meta due to spam linking of an article on Anti-fascism. The various discussions (back in 2007) suggested that local whitelisting be requested. Hence I request unblocking for this purpose. I am not sure if this can be allowed, but I provide the link to the specific start page for use in the specific article, rather than to the entire domain, because if there is still concern about spam this should solve it. Also, am not an anarchist, so no COI ;) Thanks! --Cerejota (talk) 17:36, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * You need to post requests for a single link to be permitted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Washington Examiner
"examiner.com", one of the domains of the Washington Examiner is on the english blacklist. It's a news source. Cowlinator (talk) 21:51, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
 * This one baffled me too. I don't see anything that would make examiner.com unreliable or necessary for a blacklist. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 18:28, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Examiner.com is not "one of the domains of the Washington Examiner"; rather it's a separate domain owned by the same media company that also owns the Washington Examiner, Baltimore Examiner, and San Francisco Examiner. All three of those are reliable sources - they are established newspapers with editorial boards and accountability. By contrast, Examiner.com will allow practically anyone to sign up as "an examiner" and contribute with minimal editorial oversight; in return they pay those "examiner" based on raw page views, rather than journalistic conduct. With a little poking around on their site you can find everything from rancid gossip to "factual" reports on what the Greys are doing this week. More to the point, if you are confused about this, it's because they deliberately foster confusion about the relationship between the reliable, established newspapers and the new-media-on-the-cheap operation that happens to be owned by the same company; that confusion is one of the reasons it's blacklisted. — Gavia immer (talk) 18:51, 28 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for the explanation. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:07, 28 February 2010 (UTC)


 * So, sometimes it's a reliable source and sometimes it's garbage? Shouldn't this then be left up to editorial discretion? -- Kendrick7talk 20:10, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * NOTE: here are some prior discussions on the blacklisting of this site: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/October 2009,MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2009, Rfc/Reliablity of sources and spam blacklist. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:27, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Kendrick7, no, it was abused, amongst others with people with a conflict of interest, the setup of the site is a huge spam incentive (and de-blacklistings/whitelistings have been performed just for that reason!), and that is why it is on the spam blacklist. It is also generally a unreliable source, and the reliable data is generally also available elsewhere, and it is still up to editorial discretion at the whitelist for specific links, as someone put it in one of the discussions, sometimes a mosquito net is more efficient than swatting all the flies. I hope this explains. Delisting hence, for those documents which pass WP:RS and are not replaceable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:53, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

caymac.com
caymac.com has been blacklisted without any genuine reason or prior notification. We do not run a spam website and any reference to caymac.com form wikipedia is relevant to the article it is linked from and is not done in malice. Please remove it from the spam blacklist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gentleman00 (talk • contribs) 15:20, 2 March 2010 (UTC) — Gentleman00 (talk&#32;• contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * ❌ Wrong. There were several warnings to stop spamming. As noted in the warnings, persistent attempts to spam Wikipedia with commercial links may result in the links being blacklisted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:42, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Ok,i have read the warnings through the links you provided. I did not get a chance to read them before the website was blacklisted since i was not aware of the location to which the warnings were sent. Otherwise, any link i referred to caymac.com, nytimes.com or any other website on the articles on wikipedia was not done with malice. I found them a necessary compliment to the articles i wrote on wikipedia. Otherwise, i have learnt the hard way because i didn't know it amounted to spam. It will only be fair if you requested for those websites to be removed from the blacklist and give them a second chance. Regards. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.49.67.62 (talk) 15:06, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Anyway, what is Wikipedia's policy on websites that have been blacklisted because an editor added links or reference to it in Wikipedia articles they wrote. Is it fair to keep the websites in the blacklist although its content does not violate Wikipedia's guidelines on accepted references. Does any link to any website carrying any advertisements constitute a commercial link? Please help me understand by providing interpretation in your experience, responsibility and commitment as a Wikipedia administrator because i do not trust the interpretations i will derive not to be misleading if you provide me with just links to such policies. Thank you very much for you help. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.217.233 (talk) 08:25, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

To Ohnoitsjamie: Please give direction on the pressing issues above for the sake of the Wikipedia community and prospective contributors to Wikipedia. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.218.218 (talk) 04:39, 8 March 2010 (UTC)
 * To Caymac representative: you can't wikilawyer to get your own way here. The policies are clearly outlined in WP:EL, WP:SPAM, and WP:COI. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 17:37, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

To Ohnoitsjamie: I do not have any intention to wikilawyer or force an argument of any sort because it is highly inappropriate and irrelevant in this context. All my inquiries are in good faith and genuine and are only meant to find a solution to a misunderstanding. I trust you to be considerate enough to provide me with helpful solutions to the issues i presented without assuming that my inquiries are in bad taste. I have read the policies over and over again but unfortunately, i couldn't establish why you have treated Caymac so harshly. Please, deliberate positively since i do not wish for any more misunderstanding. Regards —Preceding unsigned comment added by 196.201.208.203 (talk) 06:31, 9 March 2010 (UTC)
 * You used multiple accounts and IPs to add commercial links that do not meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. WP:EL and WP:COI also clearly state, do not add links to your own site. I don't know what else is there to explain, and consider the matter closed. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 14:47, 9 March 2010 (UTC)

The IPs were only different because i upload articles whenever they are ready and i have time. This may be in the office, at home, in a cybercafe...and therefore the IPs are not the same for that reason. Otherwise, i don't own caymac.com so you can not call it my site. Closing the matter while keeping the domain in the blacklist indefinately may not be a fair decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.220.224.146 (talk) 15:57, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Liga 1 Romania
As a new editor I feel slightly burned by my experience of trying to better a subject area. Not least as the process for communication and validation is painful to say the least...neverless, as requested here is an outline and request.

My understanding is: Liga1.Gamebookers.com was commissioned by the Professional Football Association (LPF) as the official news source for the league.

Therefore, I added the site to the Liga 1 page, and the individual Liga 1 team pages, to improve them (noteably the smaller teams who have very little external coverage).

Since then, and in the twoing-and-frowing to have the Liga 1 pages reflect the inclusion of this official site I find the domain is on a blacklist.

From what I know about Romanian football, one of the reasons for that (liga1.gamebookers.com) is referrenced by Liga 1 clubs is that many sites make the "official" claim, when Liga1.Gamebookers.com is the first and only such webpage.

Surely such a link improves the reliability of the wikipedia index through inclusion?

There is is benefit to having the site listed on the Liga 1 page because it is the official site (there are many listed throughout WIkipedia Liga1 page, and all the liga 1 team pages which make this claim. While there are many which are returning 404.

From what I decipher the site is produced with submissions and content from the clubs, the more editorial content written daily by newspaper sport journalists (names shown on each article), which i cross referenced with newspaper by-lines.

The clubs could add the link to their pages (they and the Football Association were the ones requesting the site), but as things stand the domain is blacklisted, so even they do not have that option.

adrian recordings (talk) 10:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)



I do see that there was significant pushing, by you, of this link, amongst others on this wiki, which resulted in blacklisting this morning. I hope you realise that it is content we are after, not only links in the external links sections (and if I look, I think there are three editors involved in that decision to remove and blacklist). You might want to seek consensus first on talkpages (and I saw that is where you now posted).

But, this is not blacklisted here, but on meta. You might either want to go to the local whitelist or to the metablack  (or m:User:COIBot/XWiki/liga1.gamebookers.com). Here  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:08, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com
Original report leading to blacklisting:. The argument presented is that examiner.com is not a reliable source, and that may be valid. However, I ran into this blacklisting when attempting to put an examiner.com article URL in Talk:Chronic_cerebrospinal_venous_insufficiency, for discussion, WP:RS does not apply and the article may be useful for further research, it's up to the editors of the article. ArbComm decided last year that the blacklist was not to be used for content control like this. Please remove it, thanks. --Abd (talk) 23:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Wrong, Examiner.com was abused, examiner.com is deliberately trying to appear a good source, de-blacklisting was requested for the sole reason of earning money, there is a huge spam incentive with the server, much of the content is also available elsewhere, and accidentally it is also not a reliable source. Three editors handling the request without any objection is also a form of consensus for blacklisting.  Sometimes a mosquito net is more efficient than swatting all the flies.    --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:49, 11 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Actually, this should be for specific urls: . Also note, that the original report states more than only it not being an WP:RS.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

courchevel-webcams.com AND meribel-webcams.com
Hello there. As a new editor I wanted to add the websites www.courchevel-webcams.com and www.meribel-webcams.com to the respective wintersports areas of courchevel and meribel. However the word webcam triggered a filter alarm block my suggestion. Both sites show the beauty of these areas and the vast skiing area. Thank you for adding these URLS to the whitelist. User: snowman201056 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Snowman201056 (talk • contribs) 23:18, 14 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Advert-laden webcam links do not meet WP:EL guidelines for inclusion. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

Coolhockey.com
This site has very good, unique content related to NHL hockey jersey histories. They have developed pages by team that describe in words and pictures the changes to each jersey over time, and over era's. This is really interesting stuff for hockey fanatics - just ask ANY Canadian :)  An example link that I was trying to add as an external link to the Washington Capitals Wikipedia page is www dot coolhockey dot com/p53/Washington-Capitals-Team-History/pages.html.  You can't find this detail of jersey evolution over time anywhere else as far as I've found, hence the request for inclusion.  I contacted the site owners to ask why they were blacklisted, and their understanding was that an employee had previously attempted to add links to their jersey history pages in Wikipedia, but didn't know what they were doing and instead ended up requesting a link to the main site page, which is a hockey jersey online store, so it probably appeared like a spam link.  So the site does sell hockey jerseys, but the links to the Jersey History Pages, like the one I input above, are just stories about jersey evoloution, not part of the storefront, and are really quite detailed and interesting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Smedley8000 (talk • contribs) 18:00, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Commercial sites rarely meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines, and the fact that this link has been abusively spammed in the past cements the case for continued blacklisting. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:39, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Man, are you ever hard core on this. "has been abusively spammed in the past" - did you not read the reason above? It was apparently one attempt to add links to the jersey history page, but by mistake the inexperienced person added the homepage link - honest human error and not "abusive spam". And you shouldn't judge the fact that the site sells something in one place if the link being requested is outside of the selling area and is actually factual, original, interesting, relevant content. I mean, look at any source cited in Wikipedia - every site is commercial in some way, including news sites that generate revenue from ads plastered all over their editorial pages - the 'Official Washington Capitals' page link takes you to a site loaded full of ads and in fact has a talking advert right now urging people to click to bid on a signed hockey stick. Anyway, seems like a bit of a double standard, and seems like you have a one-strike rule - so if someone tries to add links in error (like the aforementioned low-skilled employee who input the wrong link detail), you don't just pull down that link (which is fair) and maybe investigate if this is "abusive" or not, you just say "strike one, you're out!" Again, the site has very unique, very relevant content on those pages, which don't have any ads directly on them - I don't understand the harsh line here.Smedley8000 (talk) 21:59, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * It's also rare that we accept de-blacklisting requests from single purpose accounts, for obvious reasons. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:04, 16 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Also, the reason you gave for blacklisting is not quite correct. Two IP addresses were involved with adding the link into multiple articles, and ignored warnings on their talk pages from multiple editors letting them know that the links were not appropriate.  Neither user chose to respond, but instead continued adding links.  Later, the two IPs also both engaged in repeated attempts to blank out the report of the link on the WT:WPSPAM page.  The blacklisting appears to be a result of both the abusive spamming as well as the tenacious behavior of blanking the report. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 22:25, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

projectsaviour.co.cc
I wanted to link to this from an article I was creating for Project SAVIOUR. It's a humanitarian project. The domain is probably blocked as it is based on the free .co.cc, but as can be plainly seen, the site is original, verified content. As leader of Project SAVIOUR for this year, I request that this specific site be removed from Wikipedia's filters. --Superphysics (talk) 20:11, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
 * This should be a whitelisting request. But I have added it to said whitelist based on this request.  consider  there.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:08, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =