MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2022

jimmylea.com




Got COI warnings as Professional-1970 and then moved on to sockpuppets. Some of them have non-link edits, though all look promotional. Maybe a paid editing ring got involved? - MrOllie (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi MrOllie,
 * I'm sorry if my edit seemed disruptive. It was done in the best of intention. Wikipedia external links guideline allows external links in the reference section.
 * I would appreciate it if you visit the external link and see for yourself why I chose to refer to this webpages. These webpages are different from usual websites as I and many others have discovered. They were very informative. As you said so yourself, Wikipedia uses nofollow tags so it is not about search engine rankings, rather, about the information in this website. Most of the references made were published journal or books which are theoretical. However, Wikipedia promotes a balanced viewpoint and I was offering viewpoint from real-world project and these webpages which I have cited seems to fit the purpose
 * Wodekanfa (talk) 03:45, 1 November 2022 (UTC)
 * MrOllie, Wikipedia is a about enhancing human knowledge. The contributions I have made are valuable in the area that I have contributed to.
 * Many would appreciate the contributions I have made and many would like to see the real-world examples available in the webpages I cited.
 * Wodekanfa (talk) 04:03, 1 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:43, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

lengusa.com


Spam campaign. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:51, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

kongashare.com


Long-running spam campaign. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:58, 5 November 2022 (UTC)

xinghaoya
Multiple accounts spamming, going back almost a year: DMacks (talk) 03:20, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 04:18, 6 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks! DMacks (talk) 06:05, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

wikigyan.com


Mostly added by the same IPv6/64 address, but also from other IP addresses. Spamming is going back about a month.  Ravensfire  (talk) 15:46, 6 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:30, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Lengusa
There are 7 edits that I made, 2 of them could be low quality but I was thinking I'm adding something that's valuable, WordNet visualiser that's recognised by Princeton University. 5 of them are replacing the dead 'memidex.com' links. It's just another WordNet visualiser, which is dead now, so I thought replacing them would be actually good for Wikipedia. Honestly, I didn't check if 'memidex' urls are in reasonable places. I just replaced them without a lot of thinking, as lengusa is a memidex alternative, and as memidex is dead now, I was thinking I'm simply fixing broken links.

"Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped" To answer this question, I will stop replacing memidex links, or touching Wikipedia altogether, but the website shouldn't take the damage for the actions I made.

I really didn't think replacing dead links would cause such a disproportionate (in my subjective opinion) reaction, and those are the edits that mark my activity as 'spam'. I will never do it again.

Lastly, if you are somehow not convinced that I'm genuine, can you please think how damaging this is to website, instead of me. If there is a way to keep it shadowbanned, at least do that. I'll personally never add it already.

Some other relevant talk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477
 * You have yet to address the WP:COI issue. Furthermore, the site's machine-generated content would never qualify as a reliable source, so there's no benefit to Wikipedia to remove it from the blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 18:58, 3 November 2022 (UTC)


 * What do you mean by machine-generated content? The WordNet data is generated by Princeton University. The relevance of that website is about WordNet, not about sentence examples. The WordNet data is very much reliable. I hope you consider Princeton University as a reliable enough source. Lengusa itself referred in Wordnet's official website. What more do you want?
 * About WP:COI, I don't know what you want me to say. I just don't understand why my behaviour is making website to take the damage.
 * The thing is this conversation is managed by 'what about this' mentality, in addition to your condescending behaviour (check my linked conversation) . You keep coming up with other reasons. If this about spamming, yes that 'spam' will not happen again. And the spam definition here is replacing a dead link with similar links. As I stated above, I didn't thorughly checked if 'memidex' links were in correct places. My intention was to replace the dead links with a working and reliable alternative.
 * Just shadowban it if you still think I'm not genuine (if possible). This is disappropriate and I don't think it's fair for my personal actions to punish some other website. I'll certainly never touch Wikipedia ever again. You can freely ban my entire IP range, as I could be in the wrong here ( I still think what I did should not cause such an adverse reaction, but I'll not touch Wikipedia either way). 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * We don't have "shadowbanning." This isn't a question of whether Princeton is reliable; this is a question of whether that particular site meets our WP:RS, and it most certainly does not. WP:COI is pretty clear, but if you don't want to read it, I'll ask directly; what is your association/connection with lengusa? OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:32, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That particular site in this context is used for WordNet connection. WordNet is a lexical database by Princeton University. And lengusa is recognised in WordNet's own website. If you think recognition by Princeton University's own website is not enough, I don't know what I can say.
 * Also again this is 'what about this' mentality. Are you blacklisting all the websites according to your subjective opinion of reliability? Somehow Princeton University is ok with lengusa, but you are not.
 * I'm a user of that website. Finding a reliable WordNet visualiser is almost impossible and memidex is dead. As I stated in my first message (check the conversation shared) I can happily replace memidex with something else if you point me to the alternative. WordNet is an important piece of work and memidex is dead.
 * Again, if you think I'm not genuine, ban my entire IP range, but I don't think replacing 5 dead links should end up in blacklisting a website.
 * "Please indicate why you expect that that abuse has stopped" : Again, please ban my entire IP range if you think I'm not genuine. That'll also make sure I can't touch wikipedia. 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 19:50, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * An example; this link that you added to Brunch is a simple dictionary definition with sentence usage examples. There are plenty of other more well-known dictionaries available online, and besides, dictionaries are of questionable value as source; better sources are usually available. Princeton's WordNet lexical database is useful for many things, but not as Wikipedia citation. Additionally, I don't believe you are being forthright when you claim to simply be a "user of that website." You are claiming that you are not otherwise affiliated in any way with lengusa? OhNo itsJamie  Talk 20:07, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * For the love of god, memidex is a WordNet visualiser, so as lengusa, it's simply replacing a deadlink. WordNet is not a 'dictionary', that's why it's been created. I don't think Princeton had any intention of creating yet another dictionary. That's why one should not replace memidex with a random dictionary. And also, as I stated before :
 * "Honestly, I didn't check if 'memidex' urls are in reasonable places. I just replaced them without a lot of thinking, as lengusa is a memidex alternative, and as memidex is dead now, I was thinking I'm simply fixing broken links. I really didn't think replacing dead links would cause such a disproportionate (in my subjective opinion) reaction, and those are the edits that mark my activity as 'spam'. I will never do it again."
 * Lastly, yes I am a user, I really don't know how to prove this to you. There is literally no other Wordnet visualiser I can find (memidex was a thing). Again if you don't believe me, please go and check all the 'related projects' in Wordnet's original website. 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 21:22, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The presence of a dead link is not an opportunity to link your own site. Edits the one you made here are obvious spam without the fig leaf of updating a dead link and reveal what was going on. I support keeping this on the blacklist. MrOllie (talk) 21:33, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Again this conversation turns into 'what about this' mentality. Wordnet, memidex and lengusa are valuable tools for people using english as a second language. You can very much disagree with this but I think it' subjective and I don't think that would justify subjectively disappropriate response.
 * >The presence of a dead link is not an opportunity to link your own site.
 * Fixing a deadlink is a valuable contribution in my mind. Obviously I'm wrong. Also, why do you say I own the website? How can you make a general statement like that and punish the website? I'm not suggesting permabanning my entire IP range just for fun. I very much regretted touching Wikipedia, and I will never do it again.
 * Also what if I am a person who is trying to take down wordnet and lengusa? Is it this easy, based on gut feels? The thing making this 'spam' is replacing memidex links. Memidex is a direct alternative of lengusa. They are not 'just dictionaries'. 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 21:53, 3 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kind reminder. 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 17:33, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * You've failed to make a case for how unblacklisting your site has any value to Wikipedia; that is, there are no scenarios were a link to lengusa would be useful.OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:34, 4 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are you blacklisting all the links you personally think might not add any value to Wikipedia? WordNet data is an important resource and lengusa is a good visualiser. Yet again, this is 'what about this' mentality.
 * At some point, I was actually a donator for Wikipedia(when I had more money), and I always defended it whenever it's called out as an unreliable source.
 * God I was so wrong. Your condescending and patronising behaviour (check the linked discussion), your excessive power trip... This is a joke. I need to convince someone with communication issues, to actually make a sensible decision here. There is literally zero other way.
 * I don't think I can get a logical response here, but dear almighty wikipedia admin, with all this unlimited power, can you at least answer my last question. I will not ask any other thing:
 * What if I was a bad actor, trying to get a link blacklisted in Wikipedia, how can you prevent it with this mentality, and giving excessive power to individuals like you? 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 00:47, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Kind reminder. 2A01:4B00:865F:C600:8940:8CC3:8B11:F477 (talk) 21:33, 5 November 2022 (UTC)
 * These links are not useful as reliable sources in any way. In the "Brunch" example above, a simple direct link to one of many online dictionaries would suffice. Since the site soley uses definitions lifted from "WordNet", we can just link directly to that source and skip the rotating ads. The only other material in that source was "high-quality sentence examples", such as "Bottomless brunch?", which I think we can agree is fairly useless.  The link you added here is even worse: no definitions and of the 20 "high-quality sentence examples", 15 are about the television show and have absolutely nothing to do with the topic of the article.


 * To answer your question, we blacklist sites that are repeatedly added inappropriately. Since there's no utility for this site here, removing it from the blacklist is pointless. I'm not going to engage with you on unrelated questions; I understand that you are upset. Since you have stated that you have no conflict of interest with that link, and are here to contribute knowledge, please consider using one of the other million or so reliable sources to improve articles. Thanks. Sam Kuru (talk) 18:49, 6 November 2022 (UTC)

Film Companion

 * filmcompanion.in/reviews/bollywood-review/ram-setu-review-akshay-kumars-budget-indiana-jones-adventure-is-too-incompetent-to-be-dangerous

Film Companion is a reliable source [for reviews of films]. The review linked above by Rahul Desai would be added to Ram Setu (film). Requesting for whitelisting of the URL.

If possible please whitelist the entire site. Also note that it was added to the blacklist exactly an year ago due to spamming campaign. If the site is removed from blacklist, it would be of great help as the reviews could be added to the articles. Also see Talk:The Kashmir Files/Archive 2#Revert - Film Companion where other editors also concurred that it is reliable within the scope of WP:ICTF. Thanks! — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:49, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , Given the recent spam campaign, there's no compelling reason to remove it from the blacklist (which is what "whitelisting the entire site" essentially is).  Links to individual reviews may be requested by trusted editors on the whitelisting page. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 15:54, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @Ohnoitsjamie How long would you recommend to wait until another request for the entire site could be made? (Thanks for the whitelist link, totally confused) — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:58, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
 * It's not common for sites to be removed from the blacklist following a spam campaign, so I'm not sure how to answer that. Given that there are a lot of available review sites out there, there isn't a strong reason to ever remove it given that whitelisting is sufficient for the likely rare cases where other reviews aren't available. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:02, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

techiters.com


Link being spammed to assorted article talk pages. Doesn't appear to be a reputable website. --Sable232 (talk) 00:51, 7 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

cargoes.com,worldlogisticspassport.com



 * Spam campaign; to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie  Talk 19:39, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

dailystormer.in



 * Seemingly a Daily Stormer mirror; another of the mirrors (.name) is already blacklisted. Liliana UwU  (talk / contribs) 07:27, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

sellbuyus.com



 * Spam. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. -- Anarchyte  ( talk ) 13:01, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

forinaukripak.com



 * Spamming from series of sock accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:48, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

serialnumbersfree.com
Per COIBot. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 01:09, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

pronewslive.com






Spam campaign. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:59, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Capt. Ahluwalia Aviation Academy
Adding an unlicensed entity and non-DGCA approved pilot training institute to List of pilot training institutes in India for credibility. It is a fraud institute asking high fee and offering "too good to be true" scholarships in their three websites.--Fight Island (talk) 04:32, 18 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think two additions of a questionable website qualify for the SBL. I've PC-protected the page in question. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:07, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * , it is not working.--Fight Island (talk) 17:46, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Manning Publications
The official website of Manning Publications has been blacklisted since 2012, due to problems with spam (see log entry). It would be useful to be able to link directly to the website, for example, on the article for the company.

I think it may be appropriate to remove the website from the blacklist, and instead use XLinkBot. A review of the contributions cited in the log entry suggest that most inappropriate entries were made by either IP addresses or inexperienced users.

The company itself appears legitimate, though, given the nature of small-scale publishers, authors of the books may be tempted to add links to Wikipedia, which is why I suggest using XLinkBot rather than allowing links freely.

I have no conflict of interest with regards to the company. Kiwi128 (talk) 00:53, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , for specific links on this domain (especially for the page of manning themselves, whitelist gives instructions for that).  I am not a fan of coincidence, but the last two attempted additions were to '... in action' books with unrelated authors (and likely new users).  Both books had an ISBN mentioned, which gives a much broader access to the book (including help where to find the nearest library that holds the book and links to common places where you can find the book.  With my concern I don't believe that direct links to the books are needed here.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 04:21, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

geekstechs.org





 * Spamming from a handful of WP:SPAs. See Special:Diff/1123595776 and Special:Diff/1123596003. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:09, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

kalycito.com





 * Spamming from series of sock accounts. - MrOllie (talk) 21:29, 23 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:57, 23 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie, we are the members of the particular standard (Standard at which I tried posting) development Foundation (Ref: https://opcfoundation.org/members/view/3404) and contributors/developers to different stacks of the standard at which I tried posting. You can see our development contribution in each of that particular standards' open-source stacks' pages. Our intention was to enable the people to try the quick start guide and visualize that particular standard. The pages we added is not for commercial purpose. It is the Quick start guide pages to people who is trying to implement the standard for the first time using open-source stacks. We would only want to help the community when people search for particular standard and our QSG will help them.
 * We will respect your decision of not adding this page to Wikipedia and not add any pages if you wish that we don't want to help the community. But we'd like your support to remove the page from MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. RitishaRiti (talk) 07:40, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * @MrOllie Looking forward to your support. RitishaRiti (talk) 07:51, 25 November 2022 (UTC)


 * , cross-wiki problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:14, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

legitnews247.com



 * See Special:Diff/1123629149, Special:Diff/1123628785, Special:Diff/1123627564 (this last one was malformed, reverted, then re-added with the prior two diffs). —Locke Cole • t • c 20:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Looks like had removed one that was added by another account here. —Locke Cole • t • c 20:19, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist, they were already on fr.wikipedia, we may want to revisit this one at some point. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:20, 25 November 2022 (UTC)

Pharmacy spam

 * Link


 * Link

Please blacklist.-KH-1 (talk) 05:40, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

lelow.online
Per COIBot, long-term spam. GeneralNotability (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --GeneralNotability (talk) 01:58, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

airlinesbuddy.com
Spam campaign. to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. OhNo itsJamie Talk 19:04, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

universalcelebs.com
aggressively spamming links to universalcelebs.com/ and edit warring to do so, past final warning. Every single edit they have made is adding unnecessary references to this website which is an unreliable content-scraper with no about page, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --OhNo itsJamie Talk 20:37, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

informitv.com problem
Unable to provide references to "informitv.com" but it does not appear to be in a blacklist. Please investigate. This is news site indexed by Google News, providing news about internet television and video, continuously published since 2004, ISSN 1759-8796. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tellytext (talk • contribs) 08:03, 16 September 2022 (UTC)


 * It is indeed on the blacklist, having been added in 2008 following this report. - MrOllie (talk) 11:52, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Thanks for investigating. Sorry, I'm new here. What can be done to remove this block? Tellytext (talk) 18:35, 16 September 2022 (UTC)
 * to propose allowance of a specific link of a blacklisted site. ~Anachronist (talk) 04:46, 13 November 2022 (UTC)