MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2021

kathmandutribune.com

 * One of many black hat SEO/spam sources, this has no encyclopedic value and is used a number of times to falsely inflate importance of articles, particularly BLPs. It was determined to be completely unusable by Wikiproject Nepal. WikiProject Nepal/Sources. It should be blacklisted to prevent further abuse. CUPIDICAE💕  18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)
 * One of many black hat SEO/spam sources, this has no encyclopedic value and is used a number of times to falsely inflate importance of articles, particularly BLPs. It was determined to be completely unusable by Wikiproject Nepal. WikiProject Nepal/Sources. It should be blacklisted to prevent further abuse. CUPIDICAE💕  18:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:47, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

selectra.co.uk




Reference hijacking since 2019, seems to have moved to switching between accounts to avoid scrutiny after getting a warning on Carly682, the oldest account. - MrOllie (talk) 13:26, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:48, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

wplearnings.com
Gotta love it when a spammer announces their new domain. Left a post on my talk page requesting their old domain which was globally blocked back in September 2020 be unblocked. Ummm, we'll pass, thanks. Before that though, he spammed this wplearnings site on one of their usual targets. Our Friendly Neighborhood Spaceman has already shown the user the way out. Please add the new domain at least here. Thanks!  Ravensfire  (talk) 19:33, 4 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:50, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

nerdclump.com
This seemed like a relatively minor flare-up, and I probably would have left it alone after having blocked, but because they made this change at Wikidata, it added an additional level of complexity to find where that last link was coming from. So to prevent any shenanigans, this should probably be added to the global blacklist. Thanks, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:00, 7 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:26, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 8 March 2021 (UTC)

adweek.it
URL shortener AManWithNoPlan (talk) 23:59, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , are there any restrictions on adweek.com? Dirk Beetstra T C 04:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:21, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , adweek is not mentioned on WP:RSP. Similar as above, I would mainly call it bad form to use the shortened link as you don't see where you go, but don't really see reason to blacklist it. Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:41, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

buytvinternetphone.com removal
All the information added were either pricing changes or plans & packages table that has facts based information. These type of information need to referenced by the source as pricing information changes with time. Kindly unlist buytvinternetphone from blacklist as all the mentions need to referenced. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 45.116.232.9 (talk • contribs)


 * , there are better sources for this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:25, 8 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , The best sources are official sources but official sources never give all the offers/plans at one place. Generally they require users to submit their address to show offers. So mentioned source is the one that has all the info at one place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mwaqarsid (talk • contribs)
 * We're not removing your site from the blacklist, period. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:08, 8 March 2021 (UTC)
 * We might show official retail prices of things (though I even don't expect those generally to be notable, with some exceptions), but Wikipedia is certainly not the place to find offers on these things (again, with maybe some exceptions). However, that that information is behind a 'wall' is no reason not to reference the official source of that material.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:44, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

healthybodyhealthymind.com


Garbage links spammed by at least four IPs. to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:42, 10 March 2021 (UTC)

kaunbanegacrorepati.org


Another tiresome and poorly-wrought Kaun Banega Crorepati scam site. to the blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:47, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

politi.co
politi.co/2nTmTuv and similar are the politico.com URL shortener. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:49, 9 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , is there any restriction on politico.com? Dirk Beetstra T C 04:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * not sure. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 13:20, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , Politico is deemed reliable on WP:RSP (though maybe biased). More of a bad form to use a shortened link (you don't see where you go) but I don't think it is enough to blacklist this. Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:40, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * i was under the mis-perception that URL shorteners were bad enough form to ban. AManWithNoPlan (talk) 14:00, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , General use ones go on meta without question (and sometimes even pre-emptively), site-specific ones are less of an issue (like here, you know you are going to a document on politico), except that I remain that they are obscuring (I'd prefer to know that I go to 'www.politico.com/magazine/story/2019/09/30/fiona-hill-russia-trump-adviser-228758/' instead of to 'politi.co/2nTmTuv' - if the former is used as a reference on Grass you can expect that it is off-topic, with the latter you don't know if it is on- or off-topic even on Fiona Hill until you follow it). As long as the document you go to is not 'restricted' (site deprecated/generally unreliable on RSP, revertlisted/blacklisted or similar), or bluntly spammed by itself (youtu.be) we tend to let it go. Dirk Beetstra T  C 06:25, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

bhajangeet.com
MP3/Lyrics site being spammed on Devotional song and Hanuman Chalisa by fairly wide range of IP addresses.  Ravensfire  (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2021 (UTC)
 * OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:01, 11 March 2021 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com
PV magazine is a leading, well regarded journal for information about the solar business. Editors around the world support PV magazine with unique editorial content, reporting about new developments in this essential climate change mitigation technique. Though being clearly biased pro-solar energy, new market data can be useful as in this example:

www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/16/global-pv-installations-to-surpass-150-gw-in-2021

I could not find this information elsewhere on the web. Sponsored content in PV-magazine is clearly marked as such (just like in any other newspaper). Blacklisting started in 2011 and was initially justified, after obvious attempts by employees or marketing to include their links. However, 10 years later, blacklisting is not appropriate anymore. There are more than 100 cites of pv-magazine anyway, without using the .com-links. I want to point out that I have no personal connection to PV-magazine and I am not part of the solar industry. Hedgehoque (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

scihub.to
A fake website that prompts the user to download malware. Links repeatedly added to Sci-Hub by IP editors. Requesting sitewide block due to history of cross-wiki spam related to Sci-Hub as well as this being a malware domain. — kashmīrī  TALK  07:24, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:57, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:58, 9 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Thanks! — kashmīrī  TALK  15:48, 14 March 2021 (UTC)

akcartoons.in


Junk blog site being spammed by Aklesh2019 for a while, often on Motu Patlu but has also hit other articles. Multiple direct warnings, but they've continued and used an IP at least once. I have no doubt that when blocked, they will create a new account. Pretty agressive on the spam, so blacklisting makes sense.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:35, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 15 March 2021 (UTC)

muzland.ru, muzland.info, muzland.es removals
Domains were blacklisted many years ago. As an entitlement to rehabilitation, please remove them from the list. These are the highest quality and most authoritative sources in their field. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.19.113.109 (talk • contribs)
 * Blacklisted at meta, not here;, though I can't imagine what use these links would have on Wikipedia. We don't have a "entitlement to rehabilitation" clause in our blacklist policies, and as noted above, "requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined." OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:11, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Also considering you couldn't be bothered to read the giant bolded rules up top, I don't see why anyone would even consider this. VAXIDICAE💉  00:27, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

romexsoft.com




Originally a series of promotional editors was just trying to start an article on their company (speedy deleted several times), but in the last few years they have abandoned that effort in favor of off and on bouts of link spamming. It is doubtful this company or their blog will ever be a useful source for anything, so we should just blacklist. - MrOllie (talk) 01:29, 12 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, noting that it is also unwanted on ru.wikipedia and uk.wikipedia, so we may want to consider global blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:42, 15 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Looks like they noticed this report - MrOllie (talk) 17:29, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

≈ Dear Wikipedia Support Staff, I am writing regarding the March 2020 warning you have issued to a user with the name of "Aboyko92", which resulted in our company's website (romexsoft.com) recently getting blacklisted. On behalf of our company, I sincerely ask you to remove our website from Wikipedia's blacklist. We strongly believe that the information we provide in our blogposts, the links to which Wikipedia has considered as spam, provides value to our readers. The information provided in our blogposts is centered around the Java programming language, and Amazon Web Services, where our company is a Certified Partner. All of our blogs are written and proofread by certified specialists, who are extensively trained in the matters the are writing about. We can attest to the information in our blogposts being truthful and up-to-date. We acknowledge that up until the 26th of March 2020, we have been posting external links to our website on Wikipedia, doing it with the intention of sharing useful information with Wikipedia users. After receiving the March 2020 warning, our company's employees have stopped posting external links that you consider spam on Wikipedia. Any links that have been posted after the 26th of March have been posted by third parties without the consent of our company. Please remove our website (romexsoft.com) from Wikipedia's blacklist, as we believe it happened due to misunderstanding and miscommunication. Thank you for your understanding and I look forward to hearing your response. Please feel free to reach out to me if any questions arise. Best regards, Anna Boyko — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aboyko92 (talk • contribs) 12:44, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Please read the prominent instructions in the "removal" section, especially the Requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest will be declined part. OhNo itsJamie Talk 13:41, 17 March 2021 (UTC)

Got archived shortly after, but the report was first blanked by 119.160.119.23, stating 'stupid'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:13, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Meds4care
See COIBot report, plus recent spamming:. Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 12:04, 18 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Please monitor the xwiki aspect.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:16, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com
PV magazine is a leading, well regarded journal for information about the solar business. Editors around the world support PV magazine with unique editorial content, reporting about new developments in this essential climate change mitigation technique. Though being clearly biased pro-solar energy, new market data can be useful as in this example:

www.pv-magazine.com/2021/02/16/global-pv-installations-to-surpass-150-gw-in-2021

I could not find this information elsewhere on the web. Sponsored content in PV-magazine is clearly marked as such (just like in any other newspaper). Blacklisting started in 2011 and was initially justified, after obvious attempts by employees or marketing to include their links. However, 10 years later, blacklisting is not appropriate anymore. There are more than 100 cites of pv-magazine anyway, without using the .com-links. I want to point out that I have no personal connection to PV-magazine and I am not part of the solar industry. Hedgehoque (talk) 12:14, 14 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the article you 'link' in itself points to another article, so the information is available elsewhere on the web. A quick search results in "TrendForce: Global PV Demand Will Reach 158GW for 2021 as Many Regional Markets Rebound, but Risks Remain as Subsidies Drop" (this one predates the report), "Global Solar Capacity Set to Exceed 150 GW in 2021" (and I am not sure if that includes the one in the article).
 * That there are other uses without the link is plain wrong - the material is, often? always?, regurgitated material, and the original sources should be used. Dirk Beetstra T C 13:02, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , generally you are right about using original sources. It is a general WP problem that many newspaper articles are linked which just refer to other reports or studies. Often enough, editors do not take the time to search for the original papers. In this case, the given source is PV InfoLink. On PV InfoLink site I can find earlier estimations about 2021 but not the current one. So this seems to be exclusive content. The links you found are different estimations with a different background. Sure, they could be taken as a source instead. But my proposal is not about whitelisting this specific article. I just think that blacklisting the whole pv-magazine is just too strict because it is a useful source in general. Hedgehoque (talk) 17:53, 22 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , it does not matter if it is exclusive content, that just means that one needs to get access to it or find someone who has. It is not a reason to then use regurgitated information as an alternative.
 * This discussion on this specific link is just an example, it is almost exclusively true for anything on this site, it is all regurgitated and in all cases alternatives (generally the originals) can be found. Dirk Beetstra T C 04:39, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

buy.guru
It is a legit site. Don't find any reason to have it in blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviral2122 (talk • contribs)


 * , . ALL of .guru is blanket blocked since there was a huge amount of spam being added on that domain.  Legit, ánd useful, sites are easily whitelisted, but you'll have to specify that use in the whitelisting request.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:35, 24 March 2021 (UTC)

sci-hub.do and sci-hub.st
These 2 links are well known, are working perfectly and they are not malware sites. It's totally ridiculous to say otherwise. Bocaccio70s (talk) 23:46, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Indeed, they are well-known for pirating copyrighted content; all of their domains are globally blacklisted per our WP:COPYLINK policy; that is, we don't permit links to copyright-violating content. See related requests here. OhNo itsJamie Talk

Ivypanda.com



 * Special:Diff/951389804 good faith

IvyPanda's Google description is "IvyPanda is a student success hub designed to improve the educational outcomes and learning capabilities of students around the world by connecting them with ... Free Essays". Six out of seven links appear to be spam as they were posted by similar IP accounts only used to post links to the site. The other link appears to have been added in good faith. TSventon (talk) 14:44, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , the coibot report is showing more accounts, some of which have been blocked by user:ST47 under a checkuserblock/for spam. Do you mind to comment on the accounts mentioned in the report, ST47?
 * The set is cross-wiki, and the 4 related IPs (93.170 ...) and the socks do suggest coordinated spam. I suggest to . Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:24, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Dirk Beetstra thanks, this is my first visit to Spam-blacklist, should the bot report include all the accounts I reported? I can only see 93.170.66.96, not the first three. TSventon (talk) 15:51, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I am waiting for ST47 to comment, and will then take care of it. None of the accounts here blocked for socking is marked as the master (they are not marked at all), I just wonder if the situation is bigger than just this site. Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:53, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It looks like they were spam sockpuppets. I don't believe they were part of any larger case. Based on the IPs reported here, it does look like the /22 can be blocked, but global blacklisting sounds a lot cleaner. ST47 (talk) 04:51, 25 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Handled on meta. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

nupebaze.com.ng
Multiple socks popping up to spam this, to the blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:30, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

chillibollywood.com


Spam of garbage blog/scraper site, following the seo trick of swapping out for dead links. They've been warned on all three accounts and continued to spam.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:32, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:35, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

pahadkikahani.com
Appears to be a newer scraper/blog site that's being spammed moderately aggressively. Their about page strongly suggests this is not a professional setup, same with the contact page.  Ravensfire  (talk) 13:40, 26 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:18, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

latestsarkarijobalert.com
Spamming from at least four IPs over several months; to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:00, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

thefatherofhollywood.com


Self published site (about a self published book) and associated blog. Not a reliable source. Has been added by a series of COI editors/sockpuppets, see Sockpuppet investigations/Keitrt/Archive, including replacing other source links with versions hosted on their own site. According to this vintage report from the COI noticeboard, COI editor has been adding this since 2007. - MrOllie (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

Just know that Mr. Ollie does have some sort of interest he is hiding. The site has been up there for years and peaceful until he decided to attack H J Whitley. Assume he is an author of a self-published book, relative of H. H. Wilcox or CE Toberman. and declaring himself an expert. He is embarrassed. If it is true that you do not want any information about the Father of Hollywood please remove reference from every site on Wiki starting with C E Toberman. Strange that one person can cancel another. Where are the manages of Wiki? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.205.135 (talk) 22:12, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
 * to blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:34, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Just wanted to let Mr. Ollie know I will be praying for him every day. May God bless all your truthful endeavors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.151.205.135 (talk) 16:43, 26 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Much appreciated. OhNo itsJamie Talk 22:39, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

ourhero.in
This link appears to be the same as census2011.co.in (which is already listed). It is not the official government website rather it publishes the data released by government. I have seen many people add this website as a source for the demographics in the geographical articles related to India. I kindly request you to add this to the blacklist as it is not reliable. Thanks you! –Hulged ⟨talk⟩ 09:10, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:11, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

fitgirlrepacks.in
At FitGirl. Nardog (talk) 19:44, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

sportsmatik.com


One of the IP already blocked for spamming the wiki, unknown user continued it last year by using .147 range and it is present in some articles until now. I request you to please blacklist and remove all the spam with the help of bot. Thanks  Zoglophie  19:56, 27 March 2021 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Please note that there is no bot to automatically remove these, it has to be done manually. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:38, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

meaww.com

 * Etc. E.g. . I'd blacklist the whole domain if it was up to me. The website is cited on numerous articles and a bot should remove them all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , hmmm. This does seem to be used seriously, but there is certainly a spam component here:
 * certainly seems to be editing with a COI. Then there is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_332.  We may need a broader discussion. Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Etc. E.g. . I'd blacklist the whole domain if it was up to me. The website is cited on numerous articles and a bot should remove them all. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:43, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , hmmm. This does seem to be used seriously, but there is certainly a spam component here:
 * certainly seems to be editing with a COI. Then there is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_332.  We may need a broader discussion. Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * certainly seems to be editing with a COI. Then there is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_332.  We may need a broader discussion. Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)
 * certainly seems to be editing with a COI. Then there is Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_332.  We may need a broader discussion. Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:53, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

b00k.gr


Hello, the link b00k.gr/files/recommended_book.php?lang=en&page=golden_bough&background=light with the following description The Golden Bough – Selected Extracts Substantial parts of the complete work, including the rarely available chapter “The Crucifixion of Christ” (with changeable background for easier reading)

was blocked from wikipedia. This particular chapter, for obvious reasons (not in accordance with christian cosmology) is almost unavailable on the net, even in pdf’s containing Frazer’s chapter ‘Scrapegoat’ - this part is just left out even if it shouldn’t. Apart from that, I spent a significant amount of time and effort to create an html summary of the Golden bough, because of the importance of the work. Ordering the book from abroad, I even had to write manually some of its parts myself because they couldn’t be found on the web. And, finally, I also translated alone most of its parts for the first time in greek – many many hours spent here. Generally, I believe this html version of its most important parts, has a greater advantage over the huge pdf’s available on the web, and that it offers a great “extra” to all available presentations of the work. You might argue that if someone wants to find what is included in the link he can, but someone else might also ask what is Wikipedia needed for, since everything it says can be found elsewhere in the web? Well, it makes things easier.

I believe this page and this site shouldn’t be in any ‘blacklist’. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.13.60 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ I believe that you've spammed this site all over the place, which is why it's blacklisted globally, not just here. . Good luck. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:37, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

I recommend eight books on my site, to be read, and for 5 of them, to which no copyright is valid any longer (‘Animal Farm’, ‘The golden bough’, ‘Totem and taboo’, ‘The happy prince’  and ‘Dialogue in hell between Machiavelli  and Montesquieu’) I upload for months on my site selected extracts  to make it easier for someone to know what these books are saying, not as a summary, but a comprehensive overview of the complete work using characteristic extracts which allow you to get a substantial knowledge of the book in little time. [on page b00k.gr/files/recommended.php?lang=en&background=light ]

After many months of work and of choosing and forming the data I thought of placing some links in the wikipedia, because to me they are in a much better html format, than all other available. To you, it might be called “spam” because it isn’t a renowned effort with a significant, ‘heavy’ signature [as ‘Project Gutenberg’ or ‘Google Books’ or anything like that - which do something similar but on a greater scale than an individual]. To me it is called love for these books, much more than any ‘project’, or any ‘company’ has for them. To you, and to them, these books are numbers, so do as you wish and allow their links on your “external links” for they obviously don’t ‘spam’ your site, but I thought wikipedia would be more “democratic”. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.13.60 (talk • contribs)


 * not blacklisted locally, to request global removal, or  to ask for local whitelisting of specific links.  But since this was added everywhere, the democratically chosen admins executed the democratically defined policies and guidelines, and hence democratically blacklisted it.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:27, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for answering, I will contact them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.255.13.60 (talk) 20:49, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

kiwifarms.net


(Copied from meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist)

etc. This domain is to a forum (Kiwi Farms) which is a well known doxing/harassment site (described by its administration as a "gossip website"). As it's a forum, nothing on it is citeable. It is only ever added to harass article subjects in a BLP-offending way. didn't think there was enough evidence of a cross-wiki issue, so deferred it here. But there's at least an enwiki issue. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) please always ping! 04:01, 27 March 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. Thanks for reporting this. —  Newslinger  talk   08:45, 27 March 2021 (UTC)

Alternative domains (Kiwi Farms)
—  Newslinger  talk   05:15, 29 March 2021 (UTC)
 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. —  Newslinger  talk   05:16, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

mschf.xyz
I did the research and see that the consensus here is that xyz domain names contain too much spam to be freely allowed. This particular site is the home page for an art group; subject of the article MSCHF. If this could be whitelisted it would be appreciated.--- Possibly (talk) 00:52, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonable, but whitelist is here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 00:54, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Wait, this isn't where I renew my parking permit?--- Possibly (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks, I have posted it in the right place now. --- Possibly (talk) 01:07, 31 March 2021 (UTC)