MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2014

= Proposed additions =

city-data.com

 * Open social networking cite spammed to many articles. Not reliable, per WP:SPS. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:00, 13 February 2014 (UTC)
 * Please provide evidence of spamming (i.e. a list of spammers). MER-C 13:01, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is more of a WP:RSN type issue, so I should take it there. Many different editors cite city-data in the belief that they can winnow out which part of the page is reliable and which part is crowdsourced. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 16:38, 25 April 2014 (UTC)


 * That is not really what the blacklist is for - the blacklist is to stop abuse. If editors are using it in good faith they should be reverted (or citations removed and replaced with fact), if editors are using it in bad faith, they should get strong warnings about it.  If there are a significant number of spam additions (even besides good-faith edits), then we might want to blacklist.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:39, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Also, we have 7204 links to this site at the moment. If it is an inappropriate external link, they should all first be removed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:46, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

ripoffreport.com

 * ripoffreport.com/r/Ben-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Prosecutor-Prosecutorial-Misconduct-Tracey-Richter-Falsely-Convicted-Overwhelming-Evidence-Michael-Roberts-Rexxfield/Sac-City-Iowa-/Ben-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Attorney-prosecutorial-misconduct-improper-relationship-with-st-938843
 * ripoffreport.com/r/Ben-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Prosecutor-Prosecutorial-Misconduct-Tracey-Richter-Falsely-Convicted-Overwhelming-Evidence-Michael-Roberts-Rexxfield/Sac-City-Iowa-/Ben-Smith-Sac-County-Iowa-Attorney-prosecutorial-misconduct-improper-relationship-with-st-938843

I need to open by saying that Wikipedia is being used for search engine promotional link-spam for the article in question.

As you may or may not be aware, the Ripoff Report(RoR) has (purportedly) degraded to an Internet extortion website, their currency is a high ranking on Google search. They also enjoy a loophole in the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230(c), which allows unsubstantiated and fraudulent anonymous statements to remain and be perpetuated via search engines. RoR charges up to $12,000.00 to for remediation of a single claim according to court documents, regardless if the claim is fraudulent. IMHO the RoR is a WP:NOTRELIABLE anonymous blog. While it would be wonderful to get the entire domain blacklisted, I'm not here for that.

The reference in question is an un-sourced anonymous (and likely self published) written attack against the prosecutor and witnesses in the Tracey Ann Richter murder conviction and upheld http://www.ktiv.com/story/18679350/dateline-nbc-ktiv name. In a bizarre twist of fate, one of the witnesses is the leading opponent of RoR and the CEO of Rexxfield Cyber Investigation Services, Roberts (Rexxfield CEO) was Tracey Ann Richter's second husband. The reference is a thinly veiled attempt to punish Roberts of Rexxfield for his activism regarding the loophole in the Communications Decency Act.

If there is anything else you need from me, let me know. Thank you 009o9 (talk) 08:36, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

I missed including the article where the reference is being persisted (Early, Iowa). If the editor in question was actually interested in Tracey Ann Richter's innocence, wouldn't they present some verbiage with the link? Instead of just pasting a raw link at the end of the article? (I also see that this entry has been improved with the Linksummary template - Thank you!)009o9 (talk) 06:55, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the offending links from the article Early, Iowa the archive can be found here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early,_Iowa&diff=592551262&oldid=592550911 009o9 (talk) 18:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The link you posted in the line above is to a diff that shows a fathersfight.org link being removed from the article in question, not a RoR link. I guess you meant to point to a different diff of the same article.  FYI, I think it's well established that the bulk of the content on RoR cannot serve as an RS - namely the user-submitted content that's more or less free of editorial control.  But a successful blacklist request requires evidence of persistent URL spamming on wikipedia, and you haven't presented evidence of that.  I'm not saying it doesn't exist, but the admins want to see it.  Generally, in the form of diffs, if I'm not mistaken.  RoR is much like any public BBS-style forum where users can post their views, more or less free of editorial control: not a RS (except as it relates to being a primary source for information about RoR itself, and regarding supervised content, if there is any, which is shown to meet RS standards regarding fact checking and the like.)  It appears that, like any public BBS-style forum that's more or less free of editorial control, and like this here website, wikipedia, under US law, the host isn't liable if users say wacky or even slanderous things.  And I'm guessing you already know that.  If someone's been libeled, they can sue the poster and if the poster is anonymous file a subpoena and try to obtain the identity of the poster...  If you or someone you love has been libeled on RoR, that avenue is open to you.  Again, per RS, public BBS-style pseudonymous forum posts are not RS for use on wikipedia, and removing them if they are cited is appropriate.  Blacklisting won't make that any more (or less) true.  I looked at the first 150 uses and all but 4 were not in article space, or linked to Ripoff Report itself.  (Exceptions:
 * http://www.ripoffreport.com is linked from Trafford Publishing
 * http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/directory/cordell-and-cordell is linked from Cordell & Cordell
 * http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/directory/wyotech/Consumer is linked from WyoTech
 * http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/directory/zabasearch is linked from Zabasearch.com
 * -each of the 4 should be removed.) I suggest giving up on attacking a forum host. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elvey (talk • contribs)
 * One single page could very well be blacklisted after just one addition if it violates the law - I do however agree that this seems to be just one addition over the last months, which can easily be handled by reverting. If editors persist in adding it against consensus and/or it is a legal problem, then it can be revisited.  For now, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:49, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

data.cas-msds.com
Spammers
 * etc. (hard to trace them all)
 * etc. (hard to trace them all)
 * etc. (hard to trace them all)

IP hoppers from China attempt to mass-add data.cas-msds.com links to articles on chemicals. Those pages ([data.cas-msds.com/Acetone.html example]) are very poorly composed and referenced (basically broken morphs of wikipedia and some chemistry database) and seem like gathering advert requests to be placed on top of the page. Materialscientist (talk) 06:25, 27 March 2014 (UTC)


 * IPs adding the link above are also adding links to cas-no.org -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:34, 28 April 2014 (UTC)




 * This appears to be a cross-wiki issue. There are links across multiple languages.  -- Ed (Edgar181) 12:50, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * then. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 14:04, 28 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Blacklisted on meta - Shortly after blacklisting an IP vandalised and removed the blacklisting request (see Talk:Spam_blacklist). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:32, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

all34weekspregnanttips.wordpress.com and related sites











 * Spammer

All 5 sites are duplicates of/similar to each other and not reliable sources for these subjects. They are being added continually (despite multiple warnings) and en masse to articles/pages related to pregnancy, even category pages, e.g., , , , , , ,. The spamming IP is static, resolves to Caucasus Online Ltd., and located in Tblisi. Clearly a paid spammer. – Voceditenore (talk) 06:00, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Looks like a one-off spam run. I don't see the need to list this. . MER-C 12:07, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Four blogs run by self-proclaimed scientist


See original request here. - Tournesol (talk) 15:04, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Cross-wiki. .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:09, 27 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Umm... was it automatically deferred there when you added that template, or should I move my request manually? - Tournesol (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Never mind, I saw it now. Thanks! - Tournesol (talk) 15:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I was coming back to comment that I requested it there - admins are looking at it to blacklist. It was reverted cross-wiki by 3 meta-admins and some locals on other wikis as well.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:18, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅ Added to the global blacklist. -- Glaisher  [talk]  15:41, 27 April 2014 (UTC)

= Proposed removals =

hms-exeter.co.uk

 * There's a probable false positive reported here - the blacklist for exeter.co.uk is matching hms-exeter.co.uk. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original will not be de-listed to allow another site, this should be whitelisted: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * There's a probable false positive reported here - the blacklist for exeter.co.uk is matching hms-exeter.co.uk. Andrew Gray (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original will not be de-listed to allow another site, this should be whitelisted: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

dot-dot-dot.us

 * Another probable false positive here. The blacklist for dot.us is matching dot-dot-dot.us. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original will not be de-listed to allow another site, this should be whitelisted: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Another probable false positive here. The blacklist for dot.us is matching dot-dot-dot.us. Pburka (talk) 00:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original will not be de-listed to allow another site, this should be whitelisted: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

onion.com

 * Can't find a diff, but www.onion.com was blacklisted by the .onion entry. There are probably other false positives like that. Dark Sun (talk) 14:51, 17 December 2013 (UTC)
 * The original will not be de-listed to allow another site, this should be whitelisted: . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:53, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Can you change  to  ? That will fix this false positive (and all others like it), while still blocking all links to the .onion TLD. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ping. Jackmcbarn (talk) 15:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * That regex won't work because the $ will not be matched unless it's the end of a line, which is almost never the case. Better might be  or
 * But what is wrong with adding this domain to the whitelist? That's what the whitelist is for. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Any domain that contains ".onion." or ".onion-" or anything like that will get blacklisted by this line. Rather than whitelist them all, we should fix the blacklist entry to only block what it's meant to. Anyway, my regex works fine. It says match either the end of a line, or a forward slash, one of which always occurs. Both of your suggestions will cause more false positives. I tested mine on my own MediaWiki installation and it worked properly in all cases I could think of. Jackmcbarn (talk) 00:23, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * Nevertheless, a simple test of your proposed regex would allow the line "foo http: // asdf.onion bar" because it needlessly tests for an EOL. This is not what we want.
 * The alternatives I came up with in my previous reply don't work, although the regex, catches anything containing in .onion or .onion? or .onion/ or  but not .onion.com. Is't that what you want?
 * And again, I see no reason why we can't simply whitelist \bonion.com\b. That would be simplest. Sure it would also whitelist foo-onion.com, but I don't see that as a problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:21, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * $ in this context tests for the end of the URL itself (at least, that's what my testing seems to reveal), rather than the end of the line it appears on, so it should handle things like "foo http: // asdf.onion bar" correctly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct way would be to append the 'but not followed by .com' construct ("?!\.com"), where you would not only put .com, but all other tld's, except again for those tlds that you do want to keep blacklisted (I think it is the .to, but not sure, you surely want to avoid the .co.cc and the .tk as being cheap allowed redirects, as well as xxx.onion.mydomaintocircumventregularonion.tld, so a ("/!\.\w+\b" is also not an option). This type of thinking makes the rules WAY to complicated (and this one is by virtue of the site already complicated).  Again, whitelisting is a much more clean and transparent solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * $ in this context tests for the end of the URL itself (at least, that's what my testing seems to reveal), rather than the end of the line it appears on, so it should handle things like "foo http: // asdf.onion bar" correctly. Jackmcbarn (talk) 04:06, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct way would be to append the 'but not followed by .com' construct ("?!\.com"), where you would not only put .com, but all other tld's, except again for those tlds that you do want to keep blacklisted (I think it is the .to, but not sure, you surely want to avoid the .co.cc and the .tk as being cheap allowed redirects, as well as xxx.onion.mydomaintocircumventregularonion.tld, so a ("/!\.\w+\b" is also not an option). This type of thinking makes the rules WAY to complicated (and this one is by virtue of the site already complicated).  Again, whitelisting is a much more clean and transparent solution.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:17, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

I have whitelisted \bonion\.com\b. Although a construction like yours could work, it in itself has again collateral damage as well (allowing for xxxxx.onion.yy .. one of those yy-domains is a redirect translate whatever service still going to the .onion. The system is way more transparent by using the whitelist (it is possible to construct blacklist rules for every possible case that totally make the whitelist superfluous to Wikipedia, and the blacklist completely unreadable. . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:59, 1 May 2014 (UTC)

st-seraphim.com
http://www.st-seraphim.com/harry.htm I presume that this is a false positive from by \bseraphim\.com\b on the local blacklist, I have found the log listing, which is \bseraphim\.com\b # # Ale_jrb # SGGH # see that needs to be blocked All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 17:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC).


 * Does this one class as "to hard"? All the best, Rich Farmbrough, 01:12, 13 April 2014 (UTC).


 * No, we've done this before. It's a somewhat different regex rule that will keep seraphim.com on the blacklist while allowing foo-seraphim.com through. Looking at the blacklist, I see (?<=//|\.)markets\.com\b -- I remember that one now, same case as this. You can find the discussion about it in the archives. The rule in this case would be (?<=//|\.)seraphim\.com\b. That is, the blacklist would still be triggered if "seraphim" is preceeded by a dot or double slash, but allow other prefixes.
 * So consider this ✅. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:59, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

hollywoodnorthreport.com
This website no longer exists, but I would like to be able to use archived pages from it at the Wayback Machine.


 * "Explain how the link can be useful on Wikipedia."

Looking at the archived version of the site, it seems to have qualified as a WP:RS during its existence. As for the specific link I'm currently dealing with: I came here from the article Atomic Betty, which has been tagged as having a link to this site in it. I would like to replace the link in question with one to the archived version of the page.


 * "Explain your reasoning why the blacklisting is not necessary anymore."

It is extremely unlikely that there will be any reason to put the site on this list again as it no longer exists.

Dogmaticeclectic (talk) 16:27, 2 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Given the rationale above, and the fact that it comes from a trusted high-volume editor, I would not be opposed to removing the rule from the blacklist. Any objection from other administrators? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
 * ✅, no objection in about a month. Removed entry. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:35, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

aldservice.com


Dear Editors, I wish for the following link to be delisted (removed from the blacklist): aldservice.com I could not find a record for when and by who it was blacklisted, but following an online chat with one of your representatives I found out that it was blacklisted in 2012 and because it proved not useful for the pages it was linked to, one of them was FMECA. I hereby turn to you in a request to reconsider allowing this link to appear in Wikipedia. It is extremely useful for many individuals and companies in many different sectors who are in a need for information about reliability and safety. This website is provided by a legitimate company that has a lot of highly valuable information that can benefit several important pages on Wikipedia. Please let me know if you have any questions. I will be happy to provide examples and additional information. Ayelet Saciuk Moved from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2014, originally posted by. -- S M S  Talk 06:55, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This domain is not listed here, you will have to ask at m:Talk:Spam blacklist for delisting. It was added for this reason. MER-C 06:59, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

eqi.org


Dear Editors, I have no idea why this site is banned. Even if we don't add the links to the Emotional Intelligence main page, where the trouble initially started, then I think it could be useful on other pages, such as emotional abuse and emotional needs, and similar pages. The website is well written, although it may be idiosyncratic at times, it is mixed in with a lot of good advice and information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.201.19 (talk • contribs)
 * ❌ We generally only consider requests from trusted, high-volume editors. Furthermore, I don't see how this would be of any use to the project, as it doesn't meet WP:RS. I see that it's also blacklisted on at least 6 other wikis, suggesting some serious canvassing. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 16:52, 23 April 2014 (UTC)

preqin.com


This site appears wrongly banned. It is an established financial research institution with an entire Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preqin) dedicated to it, and there appear to be no controversies or questions around the legitimacy of its financial research. I wanted to include a reference to one of its reports on investment funds and learned that the site is banned. It should be unbanned. Thanks for the consideration. Orthodox2014 (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I presume that you mean preqin.com (in the template) .. I have changed that. I'll have a look.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:15, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * No, the site was not wrongly banned, it was spammed (several editors who edited solely to get this linked, this is one example edit). I found quickly a likely COI editor operating in 2010 (the site was blacklisted in 2008).
 * However, this is a long time ago, maybe it can be removed (with the hope that it does not continue). I do however note, that this is likely only going to be used on a couple of pages, and a couple of links, maybe whitelisting is a sufficient option.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:23, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * OI!
 * I just noted that on Preqin, the external link is not spelled 'preqin.com', but 'prequin.com' - a plain redirect site.
 * Looking further. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:24, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The correct spelling (I just double checked) is preqin.com. They do financial analysis and research on investments.  Orthodox2014 (talk) 20:05, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * I have another suspect from 2011 using prequin.com. Nothing significant.  I'll let another admin (or User:Hu12, who handled this in 2008) have a look and decide.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:12, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point that bugs me is the following. That editor of 2011 is pretty much an SPA, handful of edits (which makes me suspect that it is a spammer, but I am not naming because I don't know for sure, not enough edits).  What my problem is, is that that editor is adding a piece of data with a reference using prequin.com.  A random, good faith, editor (i.e., someone not involved with the site or being paid to use the site) who would find info on preqin.com (that is where you are when you read the data) would copy-paste the link from the address bar as a reference - 'preqin.com/blah', not 'prequin.com/blah' .. what is the chance that a random editor knows that they can use 'prequin.com' to not hit the blacklist?  Or were they, 3 years after the blacklisting, still actively here to push their own stuff, knowingly using prequin.com so it would not hit the blacklist (or paying someone to do it for them)?  If it is the latter, I am tempted to blacklist prequin.com as well, and ask people to go through the current links there to prune them, or whitelist the specific links that are needed, and also here suggest to  for the specific link.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * The point that bugs me is the following. That editor of 2011 is pretty much an SPA, handful of edits (which makes me suspect that it is a spammer, but I am not naming because I don't know for sure, not enough edits).  What my problem is, is that that editor is adding a piece of data with a reference using prequin.com.  A random, good faith, editor (i.e., someone not involved with the site or being paid to use the site) who would find info on preqin.com (that is where you are when you read the data) would copy-paste the link from the address bar as a reference - 'preqin.com/blah', not 'prequin.com/blah' .. what is the chance that a random editor knows that they can use 'prequin.com' to not hit the blacklist?  Or were they, 3 years after the blacklisting, still actively here to push their own stuff, knowingly using prequin.com so it would not hit the blacklist (or paying someone to do it for them)?  If it is the latter, I am tempted to blacklist prequin.com as well, and ask people to go through the current links there to prune them, or whitelist the specific links that are needed, and also here suggest to  for the specific link.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:21, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Yes, I am going to advise whitelisting:
 * Still active in 2013. Obvious COI.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Still active in 2013. Obvious COI.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:30, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

Gayot.com


While editing VeeV I came across a link to a page on a site called novusvinum.com, which I traced and found now to redirect to a page at gayot.com. Gayot is a reputable food and drink review website, and the page verifies the naming of VeeV as a "top 10 spirit" in 2010. When I tried to update the link in the article, I found that gayot.com is on the blacklist. The reason given for its inclusion is that it was being abused by multiple SPAs back in March 2011. Can we try removing the site now, three years later, as it is a legitimate source, and the abusers may by now have gone on to other projects? —Largo Plazo (talk) 11:21, 25 April 2014 (UTC)
 * . Please see review the archives for other similar requests. Three years is not a long time, and because Gayot themselves have rather recently requested delisting, it appears that they still have a keen interest in their links appearing on Wikipedia. Sorry, there is still too much temptation out there to abuse it if de-listed. to evaluate individual links on a case by case basis for whitelisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 25 April 2014 (UTC)



You say this is a redirect to gayot.com - let us monitor this then. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Hunh, interesting. So then they've gotten themselves blocked from getting linked to even for valid reasons. Thanks for the explanation. —Largo Plazo (talk) 08:48, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * No, they didn't get blocked from getting linked to for valid reasons, you can ask for whitelisting for specific links for those cases (hence, ). It is just an extra hurdle that they got themselves into (that we defer to the whitelist suggests already that we are willing to consider the whitelist requests, we just are not going to de-blacklist).  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:57, 26 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oh, I get it. Thanks again. —Largo Plazo (talk) 09:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)

iplt20wiki.com


Genuine sports website, featuring news about Indian Premier League cricket tournament. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iplcricket-guru (talk • contribs) 17:47, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
 * And genuinly spammed by (conflict of interest) editors. That it is a wiki does not help either.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:05, 29 April 2014 (UTC)

Action taken against one of the editors who was spamming. He has been removed. Henceforth there will be no spamming from this website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iplcricket-guru (talk • contribs) 06:04, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Yes, we know there won't be any spamming, because it is blacklisted. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:34, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

Help to remove this website from blacklist. Working hard to ensure no spamming in future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iplcricket-guru (talk • contribs) 08:26, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

nationalvisas.com.au
Dear Editors, I'd like to request for the link above to be removed from the blacklist. I could not find a record about when and who blacklisted this site link.

How the site can be useful on Wikipedia: Our contents are original write-ups by our Registered Migration Agents, so these can be used as legitimate reference for those who are seeking advice and assistance in migrating to Australia. Further, the pieces of information contained therein are from the Immigration Department of Australia, so the reason for blacklisting the link can be said as unwarranted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NationalVisas (talk • contribs)
 * First of all, we generally do not remove links on the request of site owners. Moreover, links are, generally, blacklisted because they were spammed inappropriately (or multiple sites closely related to them).  Here that seems the same: m:User:COIBot/XWiki/wholesaleappareldirect.com.  This is also not blacklisted here.  I would either ask for whitelisting of specific links on the server which are deemed necessary as a reference, or ask for de-listing on meta .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:31, 30 April 2014 (UTC)

calistry.org
This website contains efficient online tools for computing equations in chemistry. Similar to webqc.org (which can found in the external links in various chemistry law's, such as Ideal Gas Law page in wikipedia) calistry.org provides educational calculators on basics law on chemistry. The website does not contain anything apart from calculators. It is blacklisted saying "Scientific calculator site, not so spammish, but is unencyclopedic and is being added all over wikipedia by IP hoppers".

How can the site be useful: All the pages where calistry [external link] appears are simply the links toward their respective calculators. Like Ideal Gas Law previously contained this \calistry\.org/node/10 link. It is quite obvious that online tools (Calculators and Simulators ) of the respective subjects (Specially Science) makes it further understandable.

Why it should not be blacklisted: The website does not contain anything apart from calculators. So there is no chance for spam, and calculators and simulator should not be termed as "unencyclopedic" content in the field of science. I had added about thirty links in various topics and unfortunately had added through an unregistered account since I created this account later. I found this calculator by chance and I wanted people to get some properly functioning calculators, since google results of "chemical calculators" mostly contain malfunctioning or useless calculators. I could not however contact anyone on the calistry.org site so that they could know what have I done :( . User:Chemistryhelp (talk) 9:58, 6 May 2014 (UTC).


 * Wikipedia is not an online resource to find chemistry calculators (or any calculators for that matter). That there are others may actually be already a problem.  Please do note the relevant policies and guidelines (which have already been communicated to you when you added the links and likely in warnings on talkpages of IPs you used): 'What Wikipedia is not': we are not writing a linkfarm, 'What Wikipedia is not': we are not writing a repository, the external links guideline and the spam guideline.
 * I do note that you yourself with this account added more of these links (and undid a removal). And I find this (where webqc was replaced with calistry) worrying, as well as your continued attempts to add it after it was blacklisted.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 05:12, 6 May 2014 (UTC)

Do check this  once again, since you wrongly interpreting the change. Webqc was NOT replaced. It remained as it was. I simply added the name webqc infront of their external link. User:Chemistryhelp (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 7 May 2014 (UTC)


 * You're right, it was added, my apologies. Still, that your link was added before the existing one is, equally, worrying.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 03:27, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

Anyway my apologies and I didn't mean to spam wikipedia, just thought it might be helpful. So, do whatever you feel is right.... :) ...User:Chemistryhelp (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 12:21, 7 May 2014 (UTC)

However you can reconsider the removal from the spamlist, I can assure no more these links in the external link in wikipedia from my side. It must be noted that these links were not spam (do recheck it) and thus it is not required for it to be in the blacklist. The reason that was stated was simply "seemed worrying". The links that was put in wikipedia has already been unlisted. So spam listing calistry.org is unreasonable when there is no "spam" at all (view calistry.org and check if there is any). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chemistryhelp (talk • contribs) 09:02, 9 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ The site was spammed by you and other single purpose IP accounts; hence the blacklisting to prevent it from being spammed further. Problem solved. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:22, 16 May 2014 (UTC)

corecommerce.com


I am trying to created a page for corecommerce.com with links to articles about the company. When I go to save the page it blocks the save due to an external link that is listed on the blacklist. I emailed a representative and they said to run a link summary and find out why the link is blacklisted because she could not find a reason why the link was on the blacklist. I ran a link summary and it stated that corecommerce.com was not on the blacklist. I do not know what to do. The page won't save due to corecommerce.com being on the blacklist and the link summary states corecommerce.com is not on the blacklist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lsm615 (talk • contribs) 19:46, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
 * ❌ Not blacklisted here, blacklisted [meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist globally] due to an automated bot catching that someone from the company's IP was adding the link to articles. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:49, 16 May 2014 (UTC)