MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011

=Proposed additions=

lsmuedu.com


There are several .com domains claiming to be the english site of this Ukrainian school (lsmuedu.com, lsmu.com). A few days ago the official Ukrainian site (lsmu.edu.ua) opened an English section (http://lsmu.edu.ua/eng/) and they make it very clear that they do not recognize any other site to be official. So I propose blacklisting lsmuedu.com, a link to which recently has been aggressively spammed in wikipedia articles by. -- X7q (talk) 05:51, 16 April 2011 (UTC)


 * because the problem seems to have been solved by blocking the spammer and associated socks. If more spammers for this site pop up, feel free to re-open this report. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:19, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

Proliferation of scribd links in the blacklist
I noticed Hu12 added a bunch of scribd.com links (one entry with some wildcards would have been sufficient; why all those?). I'm wondering, since scribd content consists (as far as I can tell) of original work posted by users or copies of copyrighted material, if anything on scribd would qualify as a WP:RS. If Hu12's additions are any indication, this blacklist could swell disproportionately with scribd links. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:42, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems scribd links are formatted in some form of unique document number (...scribd.com/doc/10935894/...), not by user name or ID. Those links are apart of one persistant spammers collection of spamlinks. Typical, Spamming, subverting the blacklist, vandalism ect type case. The log has a link to the case. I would agree, Amatulić, as to scribd... its a "honey pot" for WP:OR, WP:COPYRIGHT vios, and most things unreliable...perhaps this might be a candidate for a perminant block?--Hu12 (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Personally I'd support general blacklisting with support for whitelisting documents deemed acceptable. A lot of POV pushers have used scribd documents as a way to imply that a real scholarly paper has been published on something when in fact scribd has no editorial function. They have also been used to store copyright violations, as noted in the scribd article. Also, while not a reason for blacklisting, it's true that a lot of well-meaning editors have used scribd for sourcing simply because it looks like a reliable source, even though it generally isn't. — Gavia immer (talk) 21:33, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * One wouldn't need to blacklist the whole domain either, just �scribd.com/doc/�. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:53, 21 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Found an old discussion supporting the same thing (note; the load time is long). Any way, there are currently over 7000 links of scribd on wikipedia. cleanup will need to be done first, otherwise we risk significant disruption. I think I recall someone was making a bot that could remove links, cant remember who. Seems there's quite a few sub-sections;
 * scribd.com/group/
 * scribd.com/share/
 * scribd.com/groups/
 * scribd.com/feeds/
 * scribd.com/explore/
 * scribd.com/community/
 * scribd.com/store/
 * scribd.com/webstuff/
 * scribd.com/upload/
 * scribd.com/partners
 * scribd.com/people/
 * scribd.com/mobile/
 * scribd.com/full/
 * blog.scribd.com/
 * scribd.com/collections/
 * scribd.com/press
 * Authors pages are located in the root.. scribd.com/LauraNovak..--Hu12 (talk) 16:56, 22 February 2011 (UTC)
 * The vast majority (5000+ links) are for scribd.com/doc/*. We could chip away at the most obvious ones first, such as scribd.com/(store|group|groups|community) and blog.scribd.com. I also see a few scribd links that match a familiar Wikipedia username.... looks like somebody trying to create their own article references. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 22 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I've revertlisted scribd.com on XLinkBot, which might help to keep mainspace a bit clean. Seen this post, I would support blacklisting this.  Note, we do not need to clean before blacklisting (pages with the link will still save), as long as they go ASAP afterwards.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 13:32, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * "We do not need to clean before blacklisting". We don't? How does that work? And would this explain why I'm able to save blacklisted links in the helium.com article? Just curious how this works; I'm fairly new to working on this list. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)


 * If you need to nuke the links let me know, Ive got the tools. ΔT The only constant 13:34, 23 February 2011 (UTC)
 * Now you tell me... I spent all day cleaning up helium.com links manually from hundreds of articles before I blacklisted the site. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:44, 26 February 2011 (UTC)

I'd really like clarification on the question I posed above: If we blacklist something, how are articles affected that already contain the link? If someone happens to edit one of those pages, will the link indeed still save, as Dirk Beetstra claims above? If this is true, then blacklisting something that appears in 7000 places on Wikipedia wouldn't be disruptive, would it? ~Amatulić (talk) 18:25, 29 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Existing links already contained in articles will not disrupt, or block editors from saving changes. Only newly added links will be blocked. however, if a link that is already in an article is removed....it cannot be re-added. This wasn't the case a few years ago, when existing links would blocked any article from being saved untill the effected url was removed. I sometimes forget that fact (above)..LOL. Blocking shouldent create usability issues in articles that currently contain this link...--Hu12 (talk) 14:28, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

getselfesteem.net
MER-C 06:57, 28 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:21, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org


I just added lenr-canr.org, an advocacy site which was blacklisted at meta due to link spamming and copyright violations. One of the main offenders campaigned for removal at meta, was finally successful and immediately added a link to a copyright violation. WP:C makes no exceptions for "convenience" especially convenience in supporting POV-pushing by multiply-sanctioned editors. Guy (Help!) 14:56, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * JzG has the history wrong. I was banned from cold fusion before the meta delisting took place. I had previously added whitelisted links, after discussions on the whitelist page -- long ago! -- that rejected the copyvio claim. There never was any spamming, that was a deceptive claim from the beginning. Almost all the reasons given above are irrelevant to the blacklist. --Abd (talk) 17:22, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Links to copyright material in pursuit of POV-pushing in an area from which you're topic banned. I recommend you study Healey's First Law of Holes. Guy (Help!) 20:02, 29 April 2011 (UTC)
 * It's an advocacy site fundamentally, but nonetheless not inappropriate for some uses. I cannot recall any copyvio being proven, though such was claimed at  . People have posted their own papers, but that's a routine academic practice, though publishers tend not to like it. I do not see that the use of it by a particular editor is relevant, nor that it is currently being used for spamming. I do not think that after the delisting 6 months ago it can be re-listed without a full discussion to prove that the consensus has changed,, not merely an assertion that it merits relisting, and I have therefore reverted Guy's addition, per WP:BRD.  (to avoid confusion, let me make it plain that I agree with the topic bans from this area, but that's another matter than the site.)  DGG ( talk ) 20:58, 29 April 2011 (UTC).

Pearl-guide.com


The pearl-guide.com owned by Jeremy Shepherd is a forum for selling pearls and promoting the sale of bogus pearls. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Hanadama_Pearls)

Spam Proof: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Umm_as_Sabaan Unrelated information pointing to forums as reference.

Search: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:LinkSearch&target=*.pearl-guide.com — 141.149.27.178 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 18:09, 9 May 2011 (UTC).


 * pearl-guide.com and pearlparadise.com are owned by "Shepherd", other seem unrelated. Clearly there has been a long term edit war between "Shepherd" and anon IP's removing his links. Probably some rival site, Disgruntled forum member or whatever... however, clearly the accounts and IP's he's used were for promotional purposes, IE;
 * 
 * A statement made some time back, "The information in that article and this article come from research performed by myself .." puts in serious question that this site is WP:OR and not a WP:RS. Forums are obviously Links to be avoided and are not reliable sources. Seems most the spamming occured a while back, and there seems no current reason to block. Final warning given to accounts & IP's. However I'm removing some of the links per WP:OR, WP:EL and WP:RS. --Hu12 (talk) 17:14, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

destination4u.net
It has been added a couple of times to Amsterdam. Perhaps it has been used to spam other articles. Tgeorgescu (talk) 15:58, 24 April 2011 (UTC)


 * The link sends to a site containing a link directory. Perhaps some people pay for having their links included therein. Anyway, it is no scholarly site, no academical source, no newspaper, not even a blog. It seems that it has been added to Wikipedia for reasons of commercial gain. Tgeorgescu (talk) 16:30, 26 April 2011 (UTC)
 * No evidence on en.wikipedia, however, Massive multiple projects sockpuppetry and link-spamming;
 * Cross Wiki
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tahibora
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tahibora
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Urgemilos
 * http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Urgemilos
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/93.86.99.171
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/93.86.99.171
 * http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Condorice
 * http://da.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Condorice
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/178.223.52.206
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Josjednom
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/178.222.61.55
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/178.222.61.55
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Unitbest
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Unitbest
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Voiceleter
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Pomeranjezemlje
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zabari
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fjorelmusil
 * http://bg.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fjorelmusil
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/178.223.20.70
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gugica
 * http://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gugica
 * http://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bojakrstic
 * http://sh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bojakrstic
 * http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bojakrstic
 * http://no.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fiksnitnr
 * http://zh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Fiksnitnr
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Микони
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Гогарус
 * http://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tabulatori
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Tabulatori
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Veracinc
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Veracinc
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Odlicnopt
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Malizeka
 * http://sh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Malizeka
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bejbered
 * http://sr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bejbered
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/178.222.5.195
 * http://ru.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/178.222.5.195
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Multepro
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Multepro
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bokisvele
 * http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bokisvele
 * http://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bokisvele
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mikloskocity
 * http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Mikloskocity
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bratrumun
 * http://cs.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jasamceh
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Jasamceh
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zagubari
 * http://sh.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Zagubari
 * http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Vikiblinder
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Sunasche
 * http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Sunasche
 * http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Suradniro
 * http://ro.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Suradniro
 * http://mk.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Trialciganin
 * http://id.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Trialciganin
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Otporassrb
 * http://th.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Otporassrb
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Vikikorisnik
 * http://el.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Vikikorisnik
 * http://hr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Vikikorisnik
 * http://el.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Amerigovna
 * http://vi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Amerigovna
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gugica
 * http://fi.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Gugica
 * http://th.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Batapeki
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Batapeki
 * http://th.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Bataica
 * http://th.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/109.93.41.239
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/Antispamguy
 * Replacing links..ect and adding theirs "on top"..ect.., is never a sign of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 16:05, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta request submitted.--Hu12 (talk) 16:27, 12 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta ✅--Hu12 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta ✅--Hu12 (talk) 13:51, 13 May 2011 (UTC)


 * More cross wiki spam from Adsense pub-4103081462180287
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Diamond Age GmbH, Dusan Uzelac (CEO)



Same style of edits, massive cross wiki sockpuppetry, multiple sites are all the same adsense owner. Typicaly Whipes out all existing links but more disturbing is the pattern of replacing official government links with his adsense spam(link vandalism). Also pretending to be a 'BOT's" and here and here and Here and Here and Here--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 23 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Please correct the last diff. It should be so. My bot is not weird. It's very cool and usefull --Emaus (talk) 18:17, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Removed. thanks for correcting that, Emaus. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2011 (UTC)

weirdcrap.com
Site formerly hosted parodies of the Jack Chick tracts, has apparently been taken over by domain grabbers and now hosts a porn site. I'm not an expert on Trojans, etc, but as I left the site I got a warning from AVG that suggested an attempt to install who-knows-what on my machine. Someone else has removed most of the links, here is the diff for the (hopefully last) two. --CliffC (talk) 02:41, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

persianminiaturepaintings.com




MER-C 06:49, 10 May 2011 (UTC)
 * previous. --Hu12 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

beautytipsalways.blogspot.com



 * Spammers

MER-C 10:27, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)

thecozypet.com




MER-C 10:17, 12 May 2011 (UTC)


 * SPI filed Sockpuppet investigations/EucalyptusLancome ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)) 03:57, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Good work, --Hu12 (talk) 14:02, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you...all socks confirmed and blocked. ⋙–Berean–Hunter—►  ((⊕)</b>) 15:58, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * also related;
 * Per --Hu12 (talk) 15:45, 17 May 2011 (UTC)

futureanalyzer.com and futureanalyzer.blogspot.com


Spamming from multiple Romanian IP addresses to articles about technical analysis of financial markets. Over 30 incidents since February. I indef blocked one account in February for spamming and username policy violation. The most recent IP has been more prolific appearing every 3 days or so to re-insert the links. I noticed the blogspot link started appearing in the past week. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 7 April 2011 (UTC)



MER-C 12:09, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

dogswar.ru
Multiple Russian IPs spamming a Russian website across dozens of articles. It's a personal website (very poor quality) and it's written entirely in the Russian language. I have placed warning templates on the IP talk pages, but they have been ignored. Each IP spams 10-20 different Wiki articles before the IP is retired and a new IP resumes the spam a few days later in the same fashion. Diffs: <li>Special:Contributions/188.16.139.251 <li>Special:Contributions/94.51.37.200 <li>Special:Contributions/88.205.182.34 <li>Special:Contributions/94.51.44.81. ROG5728 (talk) 20:49, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see ru:Special:Contributions/88.205.182.34
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see ru:Special:Contributions/88.205.182.34


 * Cross-wiki spammer, see ru:Special:Contributions/94.51.37.200
 * Cross-wiki spammer, see ru:Special:Contributions/94.51.37.200



Additionally:

MER-C 11:04, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta Compleated and --Hu12 (talk) 16:24, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

1818club.com
Spamming on multiple, mostly unrelated articles using several throwaway accounts. It appears all of the content 1818club is hosting are copyright violations taken from legitimate sites.
 * changing nhl.com link to 1818club.com copyvio
 * 
 * 
 * 

And probably others, as these four are now blocked. Resolute 14:54, 15 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There are more accounts as I blocked a few. See Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Tianjone02 for the list. -- Gogo Dodo (talk) 15:53, 15 April 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:56, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

flixya.com
As for abuse, see:



MER-C 09:37, 16 April 2011 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/flixya.com
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:35, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

wtc-chinasyndrome.blogspot.com
9/11 truth related site being multiply spammed to at least Nuclear weapon design article  and Chuck Schumer. Multiple IPs over at least 1 week's time. Georgewilliamherbert (talk) 06:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems to have stopped. Blogspot sites are already included in, so therefore we'll mark this as for now. If heavy spamming returns, we should reconsider. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 15:58, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

cropcirclesandmore.com
Repeated addition of the same link to Crop circle. User simply refuses to accept that the link is low value and fails WP:ELNO big time. --Simple Boba.k.a. The Spaminator (Talk) 14:16, 28 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Also spammed his book...
 * The Hypnotic Power of Crop Circles by Bert Janssen, 2004, Adventures Unlimited Press, ISBN 978-1931882347.
 * personal site
 * Vanity spam page
 * Accounts including cross-wiki
 * fr:Special:Contributions/82.242.197.117
 * it:Special:Contributions/82.242.197.117
 * de:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * pl:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * es:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * pt:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * bg:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * ca:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * cs:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * en:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * fi:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * hu:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * ja:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * it:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * no:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * ro:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * sl:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * sq:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * uk:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * vi:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * zh:Special:Contributions/82.75.202.45
 * de:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * pl:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * bg:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * ca:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * cs:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * en:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * et:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * fi:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * it:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * lt:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * pt:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * ru:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * sl:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * vi:Special:Contributions/82.74.129.150
 * it:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
 * lt:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
 * sq:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
 * uk:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
 * vi:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
 * it:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
 * en:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
 * nl:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
 * en:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * fr:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * hu:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * it:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * vi:Special:Contributions/82.74.111.190
 * it:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
 * en:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
 * nl:Special:Contributions/81.207.48.46
 * en:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * fr:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * hu:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * it:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * hu:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175
 * it:Special:Contributions/24.121.161.175

Long term spamming of multi language wikis, edit warring, incivility and moving ones own link "UP" are never a signs of good faith. requesting Meta --Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Meta request submitted--Hu12 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

Meta --Hu12 (talk) 16:28, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

howautowork.com
Only 8 occurrences, but being a copyviol of the book "Internal Combustion Engines Fundamentals" by John B. Heywood (see howautowork.com/contents.html: it is the perfect copy of the index of the cited book), I think it would be safe preventing future good-faith editors from adding it. --Gengis Gat (talk) 18:22, 13 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Adsense google_ad_client = pub-1034901973027528
 * Related
 * metacafe.com/channels/autoconcept/
 * Appears to be a Made for AdSense Scraper site. Even inserted his Google adsense for search link, not a sign of good faith. There is 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). Per Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Therfore --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Related
 * metacafe.com/channels/autoconcept/
 * Appears to be a Made for AdSense Scraper site. Even inserted his Google adsense for search link, not a sign of good faith. There is 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). Per Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Therfore --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Related
 * metacafe.com/channels/autoconcept/
 * Appears to be a Made for AdSense Scraper site. Even inserted his Google adsense for search link, not a sign of good faith. There is 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). Per Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Therfore --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Related
 * metacafe.com/channels/autoconcept/
 * Appears to be a Made for AdSense Scraper site. Even inserted his Google adsense for search link, not a sign of good faith. There is 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). Per Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Therfore --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Related
 * metacafe.com/channels/autoconcept/
 * Appears to be a Made for AdSense Scraper site. Even inserted his Google adsense for search link, not a sign of good faith. There is 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). Per Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Therfore --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * metacafe.com/channels/autoconcept/
 * Appears to be a Made for AdSense Scraper site. Even inserted his Google adsense for search link, not a sign of good faith. There is 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). Per Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry ). Therfore --Hu12 (talk) 15:22, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

lggd510.com




MER-C 01:52, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

netlawman




. Second blacklisting request for this spam, see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February 2011. MER-C 02:25, 14 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:44, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

bankheadoffice.com


MER-C 08:12, 15 May 2011 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

tierads.com


MER-C 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 15:47, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

lawline.com
A for-profit online law school, which appeared in several articles until I removed the links. Since it can be attached to any BLP of a lawyer, hawking his lectures on the lawline.com, I feel it is too commercial for Wikipedia. Abductive (reasoning) 10:10, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets first.  to XLinkBot --Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets first.  to XLinkBot --Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Lets first.  to XLinkBot --Hu12 (talk) 15:51, 20 May 2011 (UTC)

=Proposed removals=

jnlcom.com and livability.com
I have attempted include a link to jnlcom.com in the External Links section of an article about Livability.com. It looks like jnlcom.com, which is the corporate website of Journal Communications was spammed in August 2008 by an unknown user -- as were subsidiary sites. From the history it looks like attempts were made to contact this user to no avail. The jnlcom.com site appears to be a legitimate website and not a spambot. and livability.com is a legitimate web resource for relocation information. I am requesting this URL be unlisted. [] Teree2019 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Teree2019
 * to link specific pages of a site in a single article (I suggest an "about" page or something similar), which is what your purpose seems to be here. There is no need to un-blacklist an entire domain if all you want is one link in one article. Or are you suggesting that this site would be a valid reference in other articles? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:12, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I have attempted include a link to livability.com in the External Links section of an article about Livability.com. It looks like jnlcom.com, which is the corporate website of Journal Communications was spammed in August 2008 by an unknown user -- as were subsidiary sites. From the history it looks like attempts were made to contact this user to no avail. The livability.com website appears to be a legitimate web resource for relocation information. I am requesting this URL be unlisted. [] Teree2019 (talk) 18:40, 20 April 2011 (UTC)Teree2019
 * per message in the section above. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:16, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

personalstructures.org


Hello Wikipedia, I hope this is the right place to request that this site will be removed from the blacklist. I think they are doing one of the best art institutions in the contemporary art world, it is pity that it is not possible to add this to the participating artist. I hope it will be removed soon. Love — Preceding unsigned comment added by Inezpiso (talk • contribs) 20:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Unfortunatly it was blocked previously due to mass spamming. Typically, we remove domains from the blacklist when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. Unfortunately your contributions to Wikipedia consist entirely of adding WP:REFSPAM and external links to the "related link", venice-exhibitions.org(promoting personalstructures) and is considered WP:Spam.
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site.--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links" or a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site.--Hu12 (talk) 20:00, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

lmgtfy.com


This is from my POV (= I have an AD blocker and might miss problems) a perfectly harmless "let me google this for you" joke, the Websearch variant of Wikipedia's. The MW page with blacklisted sites is a PITA, my attempt to check the LMTGTFY entry failed miserably: The download aborted after hundreds of blacklisted sites at "B", no chance to reach "L". If possible allow LMGTFY at least on talk pages, it is not really needed in the main namespace. –82.113.106.29 (talk) 02:01, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * lmgtfy.com is a Link normally to be avoided (#9) and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 20:12, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

chinahighlights.com


Hi, I was guilted to give back to the internet, today is my first day using wiki and tried my first edit. I got back from a back packing trip to a Jia Yu Guan exploring the pass. There was no much information about and i have some photos and links I wanted to include and tried to edit http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jiayuguan_City to include a link I used in prep for my travels. I found it because it contained GPS info for my satnav and also about the galacier. When I added the link it said it is a blacklisted domain. I checked and it shows as blacked listed in 2009 without reason given. I found the site quite useful. Maybe I am doing something wrong and wrote the link in a wrong format. I must admit the site is hard to use, even to find this page nearly made me give up. Thanks for help, Andy - Trying to give back ;) Andy 22ON (talk) 03:44, 27 April 2011 (UTC)22on
 * Spam and sockpuppet history asside, Links to a commercial Travel Agency/tour operator are Links normally to be avoided and would fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 20:28, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

molsencanadian.ca

 * ]

Not sure why it's blacklisted. Canadian website of the popular Molsen Canadain brand of beer. Two other websites by Molsen molsencandian.com and molson.com are not listed. Found by trying to put in links in the external links section of Molson Canadian. Necessary since the Canadian site has different features than the American site. Thank you. Blueflashlight07 (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * This site isn't blocked.. http://www.molsencanadian.ca
 * I have however removed the official site,, for use on the Molson Canadian article.✅--Hu12 (talk) 22:04, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

army-guide.com
Can you please remove the following address from the black list ?

www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.htm

There are details about a British gun called L118 and I want to use this page as reference for information on its article on Wikipedia. Megaidler (talk) 22:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)
 * the link, www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.htm, seems to be a redirect. After a quick search, http://www.army.mod.uk/equipment/artillery-air-defence/1511.aspx seems to be a more authorative (and official) reliable source on the L118 Light Gun, than does army-guide.com's version (www.army-guide.com/eng/product1941.html). Hope that helps--Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * My mistake. It is


 * www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.html, with L at the end. not


 * www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.htm


 * On the British Army web site the barrel length isn't mentioned. I have searched the net for this figure and the only place I have found it was the army-guide page covering the M101 105 mm gun. There, it is mentioned that the M101 can be upgraded and fitted with a new ordnance. A 30 calibre ordnance which is compatible with the L119 Gun or a 37 calibre ordnance which is compatible with the L118 Gun. I need this web address. Megaidler (talk) 18:28, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 14:34, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

insomnia.ac
This site has essays that would be useful on several topics relating to videogames, such as Gameplay. The only reason that it seems to have been added in the first place is that a small number of anonymous IP editors were using it to replace other, more notable websites in 2007. Rare Akuma (talk) 22:27, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Unfortunatly blogs, forums and WP:OR essays fail Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.. However, If a specific link is needed as a citation, an you can request it on the whitelist on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. --Hu12 (talk) 14:50, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

examiner.com


As best as I can tell, this is the website for the Buffalo Examiner (a local NY newspaper), but it appears to be blacklisted. I tried to link examiner.com/science-news-in-buffalo/radiation-everywhere (a worthwhile article about radiation) to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents article and was blocked.

The above is not true. I write for them and they are a news source. Yes they get paid by clicking on the links but if a person that writes for them is famous why can they not list it? —Preceding unsigned comment added by StanleyCarlson (talk • contribs) 02:12, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you write for them, then you know that editorial oversight doesn't exist. Examiner executives even state that they are not a news source. Just being famous doesn't mean someone is a reliable source. Niteshift36 (talk) 02:25, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

Can anyone let me know why? Or better yet, un-blacklist it -- because the article appears to be original work (e.g. it isn't a wire report, and the info cannot be sourced to any other website). 66.65.191.165 (talk) 01:28, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * to allow linking to specific pages on a case-by-case basis. This site will not be un-blacklisted. The site consists of self-published works that pay commission to the author when viewed. Links to self-published works are to be avoided, see WP:SPS and WP:ELNO. This is a source of linkspam on Wikipedia, and which is why it is blacklisted. But see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests before making a request on the whitelist. Examiner.com links are occasionally whitelisted at the request of high-volume, trusted editors, but whitelisting may be unlikely if an IP address with a short edit history requests it. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:23, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks for info. I just found some of the wikipedia history with respect to examiner.com. Not sure when we cross a line (obviously all writers are paid for people reading their content), but clearly citing self-published content would fill wikipedia with poor quality cites. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 05:04, 19 April 2011 (UTC)


 * 'we cross a line'? No, 66.65.191.165 - you've got the position of the line wrong.  'all writers are paid for people reading their content' - yes, we know, and we do wikitrout editors who add their links with a conflict of interest, whether that editor is coming from one of the global news networks, or from some blog.  However, when a site offers web space to editors to publish anything, without any form of control on who is writing and/or editorial overview over what is written, and then giving that editor money for every time his page is loaded/read, then that is something different than paying a professional journalist for their written work, keeping an eye on the quality of that piece and then publishing it and paying that journalist, not for every time someone loads/reads their page on the server of the news network, but once for the piece of work / time that is put into it.  The former indeed crosses a clear line (and yes, we even now-and-then see cases of the latter, where the owners of the site are getting close, or even may, cross said line).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:59, 19 April 2011 (UTC)
 * "As best as I can tell, this is the website for the Buffalo Examiner (a local NY newspaper)" Then you did almost nothing in terms of research. Examiner.com is a content mill that pays writers per view (which has led to soe of them spamming here) and has nothing in the way of editorial oversight. As a whole, is fails WP:RS impressively. Niteshift36 (talk) 03:51, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

aceshowbiz.com


It's been nearly 5 years that our site has been blacklisted on Wikipedia. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist --> Blacklist added by Maxsem, Aug 2006 So, it's been pretty long time and we would like to ask reconsideration for our website, aceshowbiz.com for being removed from spam blacklist. Here are our explanation :

1. Our staff didn't realize things that has been indicated as spam by wikipedia at that time. They just submit our website to several directories and wikipedia periodically. Submit to a directory was common things at that time (our staff didn't realize that Wikipedia is not a directory), and one day starting at Aug 2006 our site had blacklisted.

2. Five yours gone by, we do our effort, works hard to establish and develop our website and we have good reputation and popularity right now. Just additional info that we've already interviewed Lady Gaga by our internal writer :-). I believe search engine today especially Google will not provide us good position by doing spam or blackhat seo. And also I believe that no sites able doing spam to Wikipedia today without get detected by your system. I've seen many pages at Wikipedia that list our website with no active links among several/many sites that their links active normally.

3. What we need for your help is delisted our website out from the spam blacklist. You know exactly that there is IMPOSSIBLE for our website doing things kind like spam to Wikipedia today and even this thing is hate by Google. By delisting my website from blacklist let my website compete NATURALLY with other great sites and let all Wikipedia editors will be THE JURY for each page that could be listed on Wikipedia just like the normal/healthy mechanism. So it would be fair to judge our content page by page instead based on things that happen on Aug 2006.

Please consider that it is really impossible for us doing things deemed as spam on todays world. You see that we already gain popularity in last 5 years. Please consider wisely. Thank You. — Kingcomp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 11:20, 27 April 2011 (UTC).


 * Long history of spamming including cross wiki. "What we need for your help is delisted our website.", "my website". Based on your contributions, It appears your are only here are for getting "aceshowbiz" removed. First, aceshowbiz.com links fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Secondly we typically do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' or admins 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. 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) 21:47, 27 April 2011 (UTC)

'Long history of spamming including cross wiki.' This issue is why we post this request. While you said 'long history' it means the event did happen long time ago (5 years ago). Thank You.

'Based on your contributions, It appears your are only here are for getting "aceshowbiz" removed.' Yes, I'm not Wikipedia contributor and neither an expert to become a Wikipedia editor, so I won't post any info unless regarding issue to our own website..

'aceshowbiz.com links fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.'

Becoming a reliable source is beyond the scope of this spam-blacklist removal request. We jump from the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist because there is link to : “Proposed removals- Use this section to request that links be removed from the spam blacklist.”

AceShowbiz has thousand pages, it would be better if you could judge the content page per page, case by case and not as a whole site.

The reason why we request this because we're confident that there is no spam activity since 2007 regarding aceshowbiz.com (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/aceshowbiz.com ) and the commitment that the present condition will keep remain well in the future when the site is removed from the blacklist.

'we typically do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to site-owners' or admins[14] requests.' I'm not the first, previously user Andre666 and then Bignole but I once commented on Andre665 request: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January_2009#aceshowbiz.com

Let's assume I'm just a common user, we clearly understand that you don't have to fullfill any site-owner request in this matter. But it would be better if we focus to our discussion regarding the fact there is no spam activity in related to aceshowbiz.com since 2007 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/aceshowbiz.com ) and the commitment that the spam activity won't happen again in the future while the site is removed from the blacklist.

The idea that comes in my mind is why our website still in spam-blacklist while there is no more spam in last 4,5 years. Putting our site in your blacklist for unlimited of time is closing any possibilties for our site to become reliable source one day, while our site has been presume guilty in every discussion related to aceshowbiz.com, lack of trust no matter how hard and how original and how legitimate is our content. This statement doesn't mean that you have to admit my website is a reliable source now. It's totally depends on you or any other Wikipedia user/editor.

An example of lack of trust affecting from the blacklist is appear on the discussion doubting whether any our interview is original or fake ? So here are MIMS and Jason Derulo video interviews examples that could prove AceShowbiz has the interviews originally. You have to play the video to prove that the celebrity has been interviewed by AceShowbiz.com and the content indeed legitimate. Jason Derulo exclusive interview by AceShowbiz http:*//www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00032189.html MIMS exclusive interview by AceShowbiz http:*//www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00023370.html

'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.' The 'presume guilty' in any topic discussions starting with the topic 'a link to the aceshowbiz is blacklisted', limit the discussion to dig more to our site content. The blacklist flag tend to make editors not confident to admit that the page content from aceshowbiz.com is legitimate, no matter how legitimate and how hard we create the content. Knowing that my website is in spam-blacklisted, the first thing probably comes to their mind is 'this is blacklisted website, the content must be fake, unreliable, etc'.

'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.'

I could find the aceshowbiz.com is involved in several MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/07#www.aceshowbiz.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/09#www.aceshowbiz.com http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2011/01#www.aceshowbiz.com

But this still limit the flexibility for the users to cite a link from aceshowbiz.com. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=0&search=aceshowbiz&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&ns6=1&redirs=1&search=aceshowbiz&limit=50&offset=0

These are proof that the difficulties to link to aceshowbiz.com and to avoiding debate among the editors which mostly ended to decline the request, your user tend to leave no link/false link to aceshowbiz.com as source, while they still keep post the info with text only anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_Is_Hot_in_Cracktown http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Tragedy_(album) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Quiet_Hype http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wizards_of_Waverly_Place:_The_Movie http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherish_(group) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_awards_and_nominations_received_by_The_Beatles http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forgive_Me_(Leona_Lewis_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ego_(The_Saturdays_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martha_Reeves (we own the content, you link to IMDB ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Safe_(Westlife_song) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Sean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_Reason (link using IP address) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jason_Isaacs http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Damon (we own the content, you link to China Daily ?) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_albums_released_in_2010 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_(2007_film)

Conclusion :

By removing aceshowbiz.com from spam-blacklist, we understand that : 1.This doesn't mean that Wikipedia or any Wikipedia editors automatically admit that my website is a reliable website. And this doesn't mean that our website must be used as a source for Wikipedia. 2.There are no spam since 2007 and we confident that there would be no spam in the future. 3.There would be no internal intervention from me or my staff to suggest page or content from aceshowbiz.com. We let the posting mechanism on Wikipedia related to aceshowbiz.com to be happen normally, naturally, discussed by your own editors and your users. 4.Our request is limited to remove aceshowbiz.com from spam-blacklist, so the discussion regarding our content at Wikipedia can be more fair and clear without prejudice. And this also mean our goodwill to clear things regarding mistakes in the past. While AceShowbiz is a good website with royal visitors right now, it's our agenda to maintain good reputation on it's field. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcomp (talk • contribs) 09:18, 29 April 2011 (UTC)


 * , again. for specific pages.
 * The reason there hasn't been any spam in 4 or 5 years is, obviously, because the site has been blacklisted. We do not de-list sites at the request of someone with a clear conflict of interest, regardless of how eloquently or verbosely the request appears, or how many promises are made. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests that the site be de-listed, we will consider it, taking into account the arguments above. For now, however, whitelist requests appear to be adequate for those who wish to link to this site. If those requests are declined, that is not a reason to de-list. If the information in the links are still used in articles, that is an editorial concern and not a reason to de-list. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:49, 29 April 2011 (UTC)

But all of us still don't know whether the site is still spamming or not and when it is ended. With all my respect, I notice that Wikipedia has suggested spam blocking alternatives and Spam Blacklist is the highest level alternative. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Spam_blacklist

Let me quote the explanation :

However, blacklisting a URL should be used as a last resort against spammers. You should consider the following before requesting that a URL be blacklisted.

- Can protection solve the problem? If so, please make a request at Wikipedia:Requests for page protection.

- Will blocking a single user solve the problem? If you have given appropriate warnings to a spammer, you should report them on Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism, where they can be blocked by an administrator. Open proxies used to spam should be reported to Wikipedia:Administrator intervention against vandalism or Wikipedia:WikiProject on open proxies so that they can be blocked.

- Will blocking a small number of users for a short time to allow conversation help?

- Can the problem be controlled by other means such as User:XLinkBot?

- Would the edit filter work better?

Also I dig more from the list : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:XLinkBot 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.

Please consider the above alternatives, so spam blocking will remain applied to my url. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingcomp (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Your request has already been declined twice. In doing so, Hu12 and Amatulić have considered the alternatives and deemed them to not be appropriate. I agree with them. No means no. . MER-C 05:19, 1 May 2011 (UTC)


 * We can seriously consider a request to step down to XLinkBot, or even delisting, if the request came from a trusted, high-volume editor. From someone with a clear conflict of interest, the answer is emphatically no. Whether listed on the blacklist or by XLinkBot, links to aceshowbiz.com would still be prevented from appearing on Wikipedia either way, so it should really make no difference to the site owner. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

Closing--Hu12 (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

metapedia.org
There is no reason why we should not allow links to Metapedia. The reason User:Ohnoitsjamie made out at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2010 is improper. --213.157.9.53 (talk) 15:09, 4 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Asside from mass spamming accross multiple wikimedia foundation sites along with related sites and being a Link normally to be avoided, metapedia.org links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
 * Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
 * ”Verifiability”
 * ” Questionable_sources”
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources”
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * --Hu12 (talk) 16:04, 4 May 2011 (UTC)

cl58services.co.cc
This is a personal website of mine (not linked to before on Wikipedia - to my knowledge at least). I presume it is the co.cc that has been blocked, but I would like to add a link to the site on my User Page. Please allow cl58services.co.cc. -- Chris  5858  21:47, 7 May 2011 (UTC)
 * . This site is not specifically blacklisted here, so there is no way to "remove" it. You are correct that the co.cc blacklist is the cause of your problem. If you make a whitelist request, request a specific page (like cl58services.co.cc/index.html) rather than the whole domain. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:05, 7 May 2011 (UTC)

plasticsurgery.org
This is the site of the American Society of Plastic Surgeons and appears to be a good resource. I saw some information about the listing, but did not find any discussion. Specifically, I want to reference a book they have available online in an article I am writing related to plastic surgery. I received a printed copy of this book during my surgery clerkship in medical school.--Taylornate (talk) 16:21, 25 May 2011 (UTC)
 * If you need a specific link to reference that book, just post it here. --Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I originally tried that but it wouldn't let me due to the blacklist. Is it possible to make this page exempt from the blacklist?  Anyway, here is the url with the domain removed:  /For-Medical-Professionals/Resources-and-Education/Publications/Plastic-and-Reconstructive-Surgery-Essentials-for-Students.html --Taylornate (talk) 15:58, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I've whitelisted;
 * ✅ Use that link exactly, as any variation will get blocked. If you need to link any of the specific "pdf" files contained within that link, you will need to individually. In the future when requesting, you only need to leave out the " http:// " part. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)
 * ✅ Use that link exactly, as any variation will get blocked. If you need to link any of the specific "pdf" files contained within that link, you will need to individually. In the future when requesting, you only need to leave out the " http:// " part. Thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 19:05, 26 May 2011 (UTC)

charlierose.com
I have no idea why this has been blacklisted, but apparently it's recent. It's a PBS interview show which has half-hour and hour in-depth interviews, quite the opposite of the usual fluff provided. A full archive of each person's interviews is provided. Example of http://www.charlierose.com/guest/view/1180 for Hosni Mubarak goes back to 1997. Certainly a valuable resource, and should be whitelisted. Flatterworld (talk) 17:17, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Not blacklisted here. . If you want to link to a PBS interview, it may be more appropriate to link to the associated PBS article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:19, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That IS what I was trying to do - THE ENTIRE DOMAIN IS BLOCKED! Flatterworld (talk) 02:27, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

Delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

justtollywood.com
JustTollywood.com is like IMDB for Telugu Movies. Its a real shame that it is blacklisted. I dont know why this was blacklisted, but it has some huge information about telugu cinemas, even non-digital old telugu movie data which is a great reference for the South India Cinema. I request you to whitelist this soon. May be, some spammers or competitors could have spammed so that it will be blacklisted. One can see the database of telugu movies, telugu artists here domain/listbyyear.php, domain/artistprofiles.php which is nicely organized. It is safe to browse and not infected by any virus or malware. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 202.133.48.138 (talk • contribs)
 * The domain was blacklisted due to a combination of abusive sockpuppetry, frameset redirection, misleading edit summaries, misrepresentation of link contents and blacklist evasion. Consequently, delisting of this domain is . MER-C 05:34, 1 May 2011 (UTC)

pv-magazine.com
pv magazine is the most widely distributed industry trade journal for the photovoltaic industry(with 20,000+ subscriptions). I began an internship in online marketing for pv magazine 2 months ago and am learning the ropes. Part of my initial strategy was to spam wikipedia, but at the time I was unaware it was spam as I am new to this. I sought out articles that were lacking in information (or were inaccurate or out-dated) and updated that information with a link to our source article which supported that information. I am now aware that is spamming and am apologetic for what I did and will never do it again. Additionally, whoever banned our website also banned photovoltaik.eu (our German sister magazine) and solarpraxis.de (our parent company). I am unsure why these sites were also banned. If I can assure the administrators at wikipedia that I, the only person here in online marketing, will cease to do this in future and have instituted a policy whereby it will never be repeated, could these sites please be unblocked?

See above pv-magazine.com

See above pv-magazine.com — Paulzubrinich (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 12:04, 28 April 2011 (UTC).
 * "Part of my initial strategy was to spam wikipedia and did others, under multiple accounts, adding multiple related domains for the sole and primary purpose of reference spamming wikipedia.Abuse log spam case. While I respect your willingness to come clean and own up to your mistake, typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them. 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) 13:32, 28 April 2011 (UTC)

But I never put any links to solarpraxis.de or photovoltaik.eu ?!? Why did they get banned? Paulzubrinich (talk) 09:04, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * We've had spammers in the past who own multiple domains and have continued spamming with them and/or used them in order to evade the blacklist. Therefore, it is best practice to blacklist all known related domains. MER-C 09:24, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * photovoltaik.eu and solarpraxis.de was infact added by at least two of the accounts listed in the origional spam case. Also adding these recently is a cross language WP:SPA spam/promotional pv magazine sock, de:Special:Contributions/Miezecat on de.wipedia. --Hu12 (talk) 14:45, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Those links were only added to the entry on pv magazine to provide a broader range of sources. It is nonsensical, in my opinion, to ban affiliate organizations that have no history of spamming. These domains contain no duplicate content from pv-magazine.com (photovoltaik is in a different language), have committed no violations of wikipedia's policy and have been unfairly punished.Paulzubrinich (talk) 12:08, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You asked why it was blacklisted, and you've been given an answer. If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 13:23, 16 May 2011 (UTC)

oocities.com
This site is a mirror of thousands of removed sites of GeoCities, which went offline some months ago. It is useful because not all sites are preserved at Internet Archive. Please, remove this site of black list. Regards. emijrp (talk) 13:51, 1 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Why? That isn't rhetorical, that's an honest question. I'm scratching my head here, wondering what value any self-published self-hosted Geocities sites could possibly have to Wikipedia. Someone enlighten me, please. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:02, 2 May 2011 (UTC)


 * oocities was added to the blacklist because someone said "all GeoCities broken links are saved at Internet Archived" which is false. GeoCities sites contained a lot of useful stuff. There are several GeoCities mirrors (oocities, geociti.es, geocities.ws, and of course Internet Archive) but none of them are complete. By the way there are +4000 links to GeoCities that need to be targeted to these mirrors. Oh, and GeoCities was never added to the blacklist, linking GeoCities was allowed in the past, so now that GeoCities is offline, these mirrors are valuable. Regards. emijrp (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * You're wrong. Oocities was added because its owner was abusively spamming Wikipedia. I'm not sure if we can delist this just yet. MER-C 12:18, 5 May 2011 (UTC)


 * There was a previous discussion. Not all websites are on Internet Archive. emijrp (talk) 10:27, 6 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Geocities wasn't blacklisted because Geocities links didn't exhibit a pattern of abuse. That doesn't mean the links were appropriate.
 * Because Geocities sites are all self-published, I ask, again, what possible value do such sites have on Wikipedia? What harm is caused by the Geocities links disappearing? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:16, 6 May 2011 (UTC)
 * some Geocities/oocities sites do have value, the editing process should be able to distinguish between suitable/unsuitable material. Harm is done by censoring sites that the editor doesn't like.Daisier (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

abbottabad.com.pk
This site apparently is the official website of the government of Abbottabad, and it was blacklisted by User:Hu12 due to some link spammer back in 2008. Now that Osama bin Laden was killed there, this city's notoriety demands a link to its government's web site in its article. If this turns out to be a private website, please feel free to decline this request. Jesse Viviano (talk) 20:40, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * as far as I can tell the city does not have an official site; many of the possible links on the various related pages here are nonfunctional. However, this seems to be what we in the US would be called a Chamber of Commerce site, and at least in most US towns, such can be  quasi-official.   DGG ( talk ) 03:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest requesting whitelisting of an index.htm or similar page. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 3 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Definatly not an official page. Its registered to a Nasir Bin Saeed. I'm also having trouble finding an official home page also. I've tried variations of for "index.html" for abbottabad.com.pk, and am having no luck. it might be a .php, but the landing page might be custom. --Hu12 (talk) 17:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)

hurryupharry.org
This is a blog, and a forum. It is not a commercial site in any form. It is not at all clear why it was added in the first place. I have tried to find out why, but the process is not clear to me. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zkharya (talk • contribs) 20:07, 4 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added due to serial vandal/spammer abuse. Understand Blogs and forums fail our external links policy and are Links to be avoided. As such, they would also fail Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Added due to serial vandal/spammer abuse. Understand Blogs and forums fail our external links policy and are Links to be avoided. As such, they would also fail Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

markets.com
Prompted by, I am posting here about a problem with the blacklist that affects the Ingles article. You can read the half-page or so of gory details starting at Talk:Ingles, but I'll cut to the chase. Currently, the en blacklist includes " ", added in November 2008 in response to linkspamming by 98.219.81.190. But the regex as it is now blacklists any website ending in, including  , the official website of Ingles, a U.S. regional supermarket chain. I'd like someone to review the collective effort at troubleshooting we've done recently, and fix the root cause of the problem. Doing so would allow me to remove the comments from around some Ingles company web pages I tried to cite as references. IMHO, the root cause is " " and that the change would be to change the regex to blacklist only  (note the period/fullstop character at the beginning), which to my primitive understanding of regex should be coded as " ". Thanks. 67.100.127.254 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

P.S. Note that ran into this problem in the past, resulting in an addition of an item to the whitelist; if the suggested fix is implemented, that whitelist entry could be removed. 67.100.127.254 (talk) 21:56, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Question: What's wrong with adding another entry to the whitelist? I can't imagine that Wikipedia will need more than a couple of links to this site.


 * The proposal above would still allow linkspam to markets.com (with only http:// prepended). A fix might be more along the lines of \b\.*markets\.com\b, which should capture both markets.com and www.markets.com, but not anything-markets.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:58, 6 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm not surprised I got the regex wrong; it was an off-the-cuff untested speculation. As far as the suggestion to just continue to put exceptions on the whitelist, I'm hoping that after all the detailed research as to what the root cause was (see Talk:Ingles for the complete details as well as the assertion by  that this "definitely needs to be fixed"), I would think its better to change the original miscoded regex instead of having to patch in new legitimate references one-by-one.  While the Ingles article led to the discovery of the problem, it may not have been the only article affected case thus far and it is certainly not the only one affected in the future.  To confirm how only whitelisting some refs for Ingles would affect future edits involving other, unrelated domains, I tried to refer to a   reference as part of the following minor improvement to Energy Policy Act of 2005:
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Energy_Policy_Act_of_2005&diff=422953072&oldid=420785200
 * As expected, I had to comment out the actual url for the reference like I did in the Ingles article. It would be disappointing to keep piling on various whitelist entries when we know what the root cause of the problem really is. 67.100.127.191 (talk) 16:58, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * There seems to be a problem in regex matching of a leading part of a URL. If you look at the edit history of the project page, you'll see I tried several experiments, all of which failed when I tested them in the sandbox. The site http://gskinner.com/RegExr/ proved useful for testing, but the one that I was sure would work (it performed properly when testing on that site) didn't work here.


 * The problem is this. Of these three domains:
 * http://bar.com
 * http://foo.bar.com
 * http://foo-bar.com
 * ...we need a regex that will match the first two, but not the third. And apparently the regex needs to be sandwiched by \b...\b. My tests on the gskinner site suggested that I could get something to work without the leading \b, but when I tried it here, it didn't work as expected. I was unable to formulate a regex that matched only the first two URLs while using \b on the ends.


 * If anyone has a solution, I'd like to know because I've encountered this problem before. For now I have to give up, and recommend that pages be whitelisted as needed. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I don't know any specifics w.r.t. how the blacklisting support works, but I can try to build on your analysis. I consulted a couple of references:
 * http://www.uky.edu/AS/Classics/regex.html
 * http://www.sdsc.edu/~moreland/courses/IntroPerl/docs/manual/pod/perlre.html.
 * It appears that combining stuff, which matches any occurrence of "stuff" as a separate word, and  character set , which defines a character set, perhaps accomplishes the purpose. I tested
 * on http://regexpal.com/ and it worked on your three test cases as well as the extra test case I mentioned above and some others. 67.101.6.162 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
 * on http://regexpal.com/ and it worked on your three test cases as well as the extra test case I mentioned above and some others. 67.101.6.162 (talk) 01:08, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * When I tried this, it blocked www.markets.com, but still let markets.com through without a "www." prefix. In fact it worked the same as if you stuck a \b in front of the whole expression on regexpal (as in \b[/\.]\bmarkets\.com\b). I encountered the same phenomenon, where I created a regex that worked on an online test site, but didn't work here. As I said earlier, there's something strange about how Wikipedia's spam filter matches the leading part of a URL.


 * It seems that any regex you test on another site must function properly with a leading \b or it won't work here.


 * I'm happy to try other tests, but I think we may have exhausted the possibilities. What works in regex doesn't work exactly the same here. It may have something to do with matching against a huge list. For now, if there's an urgent need to link to info-markets.com, the best bet is to whitelist it. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:19, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * try: [^-]\bmarkets\.com\b ΔT <sup style="color:darkred;">The only constant 18:53, 14 April 2011 (UTC)
 * That didn't work either. It still lets through markets.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)

So there's an acknowledged problem with the blacklist. I appreciate Amatulic's repeated attempts to confirm a solution. Amatulic reports an issue with "markets.com", which I assume is shorthand for "http://bar.com" (with "markets" replacing "bar"). Since no one else has replied with an answer, I guess the next step is for me to draw attention to this discussion over at the corresponding talk page at meta. I'll wait a couple more days before I do that, in case someone comes up with something here. 67.100.127.226 (talk) 09:21, 30 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, "foo" and "bar" are common techie placeholder names used in generic examples. I first saw their use in Kernighan and Ritchie's 1978 classic The C Programming Language, but usage predates that.
 * And I wish I had an explanation for the blacklist behavior we observed, and what one could do about it. I have seen other instances where regular expressions that should work by the textbook don't work the same way here. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Based on the documentation of the blacklist I'd expect this to work:   Rjwilmsi  13:56, 21 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Over at the village pump pointed out there was a similar problem with "way.com" which seems to have been fixed - see meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2010-10 and Spam blacklist.  Could someone try   too?  Thanks.  67.101.6.37 (talk) 17:40, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Hi!
 * Sorry 67.101.6.37, that you had to fight and wait so long (I've just read your requests an w:en and at meta). The domain is free now: http://ingles-markets.com.
 * @Rjwilmsi: ^ can't be used as an anchor in the sbl-regexps, because the protocol (http, https, ...) is always the first part of the url. -- seth (talk) 19:29, 22 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I just tested it. marekts.com and www.markets.com are blocked but xxx-markets.com is allowed. I'm glad it works now! Woohoo!
 * My question for seth is, why did you eliminate the backslashes and include only // in the regex? A forward slash is a reserved character that should be escaped, no? ~Amatulić (talk) 19:53, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi!
 * Slashes are escaped by the sbl-extension by default. -- seth (talk) 20:02, 22 May 2011 (UTC)

I am glad to be able to confirm that Lustiger seth solved the problem; the Ingles edit I was prevented from doing back in April was allowed. Thanks to Amatulic for the repeated responses, and thanks to Peter E. James and Lustiger seth for their follow-up. This topic can be archived as complete, though bonus points would be warranted if the now-unneeded whitelist entries are removed. :-) (e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&diff=334581240&oldid=334574414#Request_to_whitelist_single_page_ingles-markets.com_for_article_Ingles) 67.101.6.37 (talk) 20:54, 22 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Done. Thanks for your persistence and research. This was a problem for which I have wanted a solution for a long time. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:31, 23 May 2011 (UTC)