MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/September(1) 2012

CORE Networks, LLC spam
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:05, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * 
 * See abuse filter log also
 * 
 * See abuse filter log also
 * See abuse filter log also
 * See abuse filter log also


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:15, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

seosolution1st.com


Thai-language site appears (based on some English-language headings) to offer "backlink packages". -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:09, 24 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:16, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

Corebrand spam and abuse on Wikipedia
Domain:

Corebrand's editors ignore repeated warnings about conflicts of interest and spam.
 * Accounts used:



Promotional article:
 * CoreBrand -- likely notable.

Previously deleted promotional article -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 21:16, 24 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Corebrand


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:18, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

people.ifm.liu.se/marma

 * There were a few more IPs - the editor hops when warned. Dr. Martin Magnuson is relentlessly promoting his webpage and publications by inserting the link into any related or unrelated science article. (There is no encyclopedic information there whatsoever). Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There were a few more IPs - the editor hops when warned. Dr. Martin Magnuson is relentlessly promoting his webpage and publications by inserting the link into any related or unrelated science article. (There is no encyclopedic information there whatsoever). Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)
 * There were a few more IPs - the editor hops when warned. Dr. Martin Magnuson is relentlessly promoting his webpage and publications by inserting the link into any related or unrelated science article. (There is no encyclopedic information there whatsoever). Materialscientist (talk) 23:25, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
 * --Hu12 (talk) 01:11, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

tradezlist.tk
-- A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:51, 25 September 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 20:20, 25 September 2012 (UTC)

ultrabooksreview.com
Experienced spammer: accounts were abandoned before being warned and used misleading edit summaries - on removing whitespaces and adding official websites (when they did, they were also adding their link). Materialscientist (talk) 04:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)






 * Support blacklisting. MER-C 11:10, 28 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 01:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)

= Proposed Removals =

lexnet.co.cc
Please remove lexnet.co.cc from your blacklist. It is an academic website hosted on a freehost. It contains articles with free useful legal information.


 * . Lexnet.co.cc is not blacklisted, so there is nothing to remove. Rather, all of *.co.cc is blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:59, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

LatestMoviez.com
I requested the same removal last month too, it was all banned due to the SEO optimizer we had hired, i have fired the guy responsible for this ban and i now need the site to be unbanned from Wikipedia so that it can serve as a relevant source of information about the Hindi (Indian) cinema. If the site cannot be completely removed from the spamlist, we can try out with removing particular sections of the site so that it can be proved that our intention is to help. Looking to the earliest response. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.132.90 (talk • contribs) 16:59, 26 August 2012‎
 * We rarely remove sites from the blacklist at the request of someone affiliated with the site. If trusted high volume editors feel that the site may be useful for the project, those requests are considered and sometimes approved. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:41, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I do see the point here, but you can still go and review my site and off-course decide whether or not it is relevant. Thank You. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.205.129.18 (talk) 08:13, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * External links are a convenience, not a necessity, for an encyclopedia. In that sense Wikipedia is no different from print-version encyclopedias, which don't need to publish any links at all. A review of relevance would need to occur on Reliable sources/Noticeboard if it happens at all. As far as we are concerned on this page, the excessive problems latestmoviez.com caused for Wikipedia (fighting block evasions and blacklist evasions, probably a hundred wasted hours that will never be compensated and could have been used for more productive purposes) has been solved by blacklisting it. Your failure to perform due diligence in selecting SEO services is no longer Wikipedia's problem. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * A lot of history, a lot of ignored requests and warnings:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2012
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/August 2012
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Aug 1


 * Here are possibly related domains:
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted but should probably be reviewed.
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted but should probably be reviewed.
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted but should probably be reviewed.
 * These were not blacklisted when latestmoviez.com was blacklisted but should probably be reviewed.


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:33, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

durgapurcity.co.in
I request admin to remove this site from spam black list. This site has been listed in around may 2010 as I have no knowledge of wikipedia policies at that time and posted he link of this site several times on the Durgapur page. But now you can visit the site and view yourself that it does not pose any threat to any website and it complies with wikipedia policies. The site has been serving the city of Durgapur, West Bengal, India for 2.5 years. It has also attain a alexa rating of 385696. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.234.52.146 (talk • contribs)
 * to allow a specific link on that site in the Durgapur article, but be advised that the request may be declined if this is not an official site. We will not de-list the site completely, particularly if the request comes from someone with an apparent conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Here's the relevant history:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July 2010
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/durgapurcity.co.in
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/www.durgapurcity.co.in
 * 13 ignored warnings -- I wouldn't get your hopes up for unlisting. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/durgapurcity.co.in
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/www.durgapurcity.co.in
 * 13 ignored warnings -- I wouldn't get your hopes up for unlisting. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2010 Archive Jun 1
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/durgapurcity.co.in
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/www.durgapurcity.co.in
 * 13 ignored warnings -- I wouldn't get your hopes up for unlisting. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/durgapurcity.co.in
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/www.durgapurcity.co.in
 * 13 ignored warnings -- I wouldn't get your hopes up for unlisting. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

StatSheet.com
I'd ike to ask that this site be removed from the blacklist. It was added due to one user inappropriately spamming it all over WP, but in truth it is a go-to site for college basketball statistics and other information back to the 1997-98 season, similar to baseball-reference.com or footballdb.com. As a heavy editor of college basketball articles, I can tell you that it is valid and accurate. Thanks for your consideration. Rikster2 (talk) 00:03, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Note to other admins: Back in March I replied to a similar request on the whitelist page; see MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Considering the over-the-top abuse involving hundreds of domains associated with statsheet, I vehemently oppose removing from the blacklist. However, I would not mind whitelisting only those pages pertaining to referees, if judged an appropriate reliable source, but I would like other admins to post their opinions. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:37, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That abuse happened quite some time ago, maybe a year or more. Perhaps it's time to try it again?  It's not like the site couldn't be re-blacklisted if the abuse occurred again.  It isn't just referee statistics - it's the best resource for player and coach statistics as well.  Is it possible to allow the base site (statsheet.com) and not the various fansites that sit over the statistics engine (e.g. - carolinaupdate.com and the like)?  Seriously, this feels like an overreaction to something that one overzealous site promoter did a long time ago.  And, no, I have no affiliation to the site and, yes, I am a long-standing editor with no track record of mischief. Rikster2 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A year is not really a long time, Rikster2, I've seen spammers come back days after a de-blacklisting (when the domain was blacklisted for a long time). It is how they make money, they do not care about warnings, blocks, etc.  I would really suggest to request the whitelisting of specific links for those places where it is needed.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 09:00, 13 August 2012 (UTC)


 * History:
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2011
 * Big problems.


 * There's no way we can trust this site-owner given his abuse of our site. Trusted, established editors are welcome to request whitelisting individual URLs as needed if they meet our reliable sources requirements.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:44, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

removal of stage-gate.com & prod-dev.com
I'm confused with the current blacklist/whitelist status of those two pages. I've already discussed on other pages (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#www.stage-gate.com_.26_www.prod-dev.com) regarding the blacklisting of these pages, and as you can see from that link, I was told that it was removed, yet when I tried to test on a page I'm developing on my user page, it still shows as blacklisted. I'm quite confused. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 19:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hello Emir Ozdemir, Product Manager at Stage-Gate International; It was blacklisted as a result of Product Development Institute and Stage-Gate International's long term mass spamming and repeatedly using wikipedia as a vehicle for promotion. --Hu12 (talk) 19:38, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes I understand the reasons why it was blacklisted. Now that I know that, I am looking to ensure content on Wikipedia is correct, specifically as it relates to the stage-gate process. There is a reason why my colleagues, past & present, have tried to make changes to the stage-gate page: because the information is WRONG. Unfortunately any changes that I make are immediately reversed, so it is difficult to ensure that the correct information is posted there. I understand that Wikipedia is not a link directory, nor is it a vehicle to promote one's company, products and services, so my approach is rather to provide as much information from reliable sources as possible. At the same time, I do feel that there is merit to having our organization's information on Wikipedia (hence where I would be adding the URL), since our founder was the creator of the Stage-Gate process (I've cited the trademark number numerous times which were taken down) a business process that we obviously deemed important enough to have its own page on Wikipedia, AND, was referenced under the new product development page. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 20:06, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is no "Stage-gate" page (and if you created one, I would most likely immediately send it to WP:AFD or WP:SPEEDY it depending on the circumstances. I'm not seeing why the project needs these links for anything. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 22:14, 16 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There was a stage-gate model page, but Hu12 moved it to Phase-gate model. I think a redirect should have been left behind, personally. I do not see a problem with whitelisting a specific URL if necessary to explain something about the trademarked name. For that . ~Amatulić (talk) 00:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So, I'm not looking to add a new "stage-gate" page, but rather revert the current Phase-gate model page to its original format. Then, what I was trying to do was correct the wrong information using content from third-party, peer reviewed articles. I only meant to add the links to the pages to help improve the quality of the resources on that page. Seeing as the content was wrong, and my changes were not being kept, I thought that adding the link to the website that provides knowledge, expertise and resources on that topic would have been a good idea. Also, I was simply following similar protocols on other wikipedia pages, thinking that if I followed similar methods, it should have been okay. Suffice to say, I didn't quite get it right the first time. EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 13:50, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Commercial links rarely meet WP:Reliable sources guidelines. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:27, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Generally, yes, commercial links rarely meet guidelines. But when an organization owns a trademarked specific process, generally the link to the trademark owners website would contain information about said trademarked process. A quick look at the Product Development Institute's website shows that the Institute has a number of research articles (that were published in a number of peer-reviewed journals) that support the content (or at least 'should' support the content) found on the Wikipedia page. Anyways, because the trademarked name is, and continues to be mis-reference (both in content and the actual references posted), I think the websites should be whilelisted to at least provide readers with a resource for accurate information (by the trademark owners). EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 17:20, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because you have a conflict of interest, per our Conflict of interest guideline, your best approach is to propose the changes you want to make on the article talk page. If you want to propose to white-list a specific link, the place to do that, also, is on the article talk page, and let an unbiased established editor make the determination whether the blacklisted link is worthy of whitelisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:25, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, and I do plan on using the "talk page" as my approach going forward to change content on the pages. However, can someone give me an idea as to how to create a new page? I don't want to start creating a new page and then have all my efforts be for nothing because it gets taken down. Thanks EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 17:37, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How many times do we have to tell you: as Product Manager at Stage-Gate International, Emir Ozdemir, you have a massive conflict of interest and should not be creating a new page? -- Orange Mike &#x007C;  Talk  17:44, 17 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm starting to find this process a little ridiculous. What is actually happening here is that administrators who don't really check over content to ensure it is actually accurate (but rather just go by a set of guidelines) end up leaving content that is horribly inaccurate. The stage-gate page was inaccurate, and despite my conflict of interest issues, I provided citations and references that did not stay up. If I can provide peer-reviewed articles from third party resources, what does it matter if I am affiliated with the organization? The articles should speak for themselves! But no one seems to actually be looking at the article itself! Instead, it seems Wikipedia is governed by a series of rules and guidelines that in this case is preventing accurate information from being shown. In fact, as our organization is the holder of the trademark, we have a legal mandate to ensure that the content on that wikipedia page (which is now the misleading Phase-gate model page is correct, or completely taken down. I've taken a look at the Copyright Violations page, and may need to take necessary action through those means if necessary. I'm not trying to spam Wikipedia, or simply add links (not really sure how many times and in how many places I need to get that point across) - just trying to add correct information about a widely-used (and legally trademarked) business process.EmirOzdemir10 (talk) 18:00, 17 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at your edit, and I must say I don't see what would be objectionable about it. This page, however, isn't the place to discuss it. I commend you for following Bold, revert, discuss cycle, which would make Wikipedia a better place if everyone followed it, but discussing your edits on an administrative page that deals with blacklist issues is really the wrong place. I have the article on my watch list, and if you care to open up a discussion there as I suggested, explaining what you want to add, remove, or change, and your reasoning, I am happy to collaborate with you there.


 * Now, this discussion has veered off the issue at hand, which was a de-listing request for your domain. Bottom line: we do not remove entries from the blacklist at the request of anyone with a conflict of interest. Rather, we consider requests from trusted, high-volume editors. Therefore, consider this request . ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 17 August 2012 (UTC)

hurryupharry.org
The log claims "used by a longterm serial vandal" but the citation leads to a dead end. The site is Harry's Place, a reputed, award nominated UK blog.
 * . This is a recurring request, and the home page of the site is already whitelisted, which should be more than sufficient for linking in the Harry's Place article. Blogs are generally not acceptable as references in other articles per WP:ELNO. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:14, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid the homepage is blacklisted as well - I just attempted linking to hurryupharry.org in the Harry's Place article and was denied. 79.181.202.12 (talk) 06:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The specific link http://www.hurryupharry.org/index.php is whitelisted; all others (even if equivalent) are currently not allowed. But that article already has that link, why would you be adding another? Anomie⚔ 10:50, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is linked in the external links section, hence it is whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:04, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Best Things On Earth


This site was blacklisted because it was described as simply an 'internet rating site that contained no useful information regarding the items it was being used as references for'. The site has recently undergone radical redevelopment and now includes amongst other things latest news about films, comics, music etc written by established editors. It has a significant number of users and all of its sources are verifiable. I am requesting that it either be unlisted generally for reference purposes, or that it is whitelisted for its founder's page and related pages.

Colin Larkin is the founder of this website. I am requesting it be removed from the blacklist or whitelisted, because I just noticed that he has written an article on the home page about 'Desperate Dan'. I think this would be a useful external link on Colin Larkin's wiki article and would be of interest to people who are interested in his work. Since the site is no longer simply a rating site, I would like it unlisted for use generally. Can you advise? Pamela Gardiner (talk) 09:15, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * for that particular link (which I don't see on the "home page" of that site; site still looks exactly like the blacklisting describes it). OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:24, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

What does template defer white mean? Did you check out the latest news section?Pamela Gardiner (talk) 16:01, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I botched the template. It means that you should request it at Wikipedia's whitelist instead (which is for requesting that individual links be permitted while still maintaining a general block of the site). Also, now that I've noticed that you are a contributor to the site, you should familiarize yourself with our conflict of interest policy. With regards to blacklist/whitelist requests, we rarely fulfill requests from COI editors or site owners, instead preferring requests from high-volume editors who aren't involved with the site in question. OhNo itsJamie Talk 17:09, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

===I don't think I have a conflict of interest being a contributor to Btoe anymore than I have a conflict of interest having a Facebook account and writing facts about Mark Zuckerberg. Anyone can be a Contributor to the BTOE site, just like anyone can be a contributor to Wikipedia, or Getglue or Wikia or Tumblr or Buzznet etc, I have accounts on lots of other user generated sites which I don't think mean I have a conflict of interest? If that were true practically all the wiki authors would have a conflict of interest I think, because these sites are like Wikipedia, for people like me and you who like to write stuff on websites they don't own. I'm not Jimmy Wales anymore than I am Colin Larkin. I understand the conflict of interest policy and am not planning to refer to my own profile page on Getglue, Btoe, Wikia or indeed Facebook as a reference. Which would be quite funny and a definite conflict of interest. I was just planning to refer to certain pages on this website that are written by its Founder and Owner, in articles about its founder and owner. So will request it at the whitelist page. Thanks for your helpPamela Gardiner (talk) 08:29, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Blacklist removal; I glanced at the "news" section; none of that is of any use to the project as a reliable source. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:03, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Russian club Beatles.Ru has chance be free of the black lists


To use: http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/Категория:The_Beatles (here). I ask to restore honor of the club Beatles.Ru (black list of EN Wikipedia and RU Wikipedia can become less). Website is located inside of two the black lists only. Possibly, the club is without the fault (I respect all presumptions). Exist many reasons to think so. Several of the proofs are located here (main proofs and other info). Besides, during long time spam attacks not exist (attacks, which can have relation to the club). Because website is located inside of two the black lists, the such attacks can be directed against of other language sections of Wikipedia (but attacks not were implemented there). Also: In RU Wikipedia I can not to organise the process output the website from the black list (because of OneLittleMouse) - I ask you to implement needed measures there. I hope to find the wise decision on this issue. Thank you! - BeatlesRuHelper (talk) 16:09, 26 August 2012 (UTC).
 * Block evasion; no use to the project. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:40, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

We the People (Whitehouse)


This is an extension of a US government site. I can see why it may have been preemptively blacklisted, but I can also see it serving as a valuable external link in certain cases, particularly for noteworthy closed petitions. The potential of links to this site being used for promotion is possible, but I think the ratio of abusive edits to valid links there (not that it would be a very frequently occurring link anyway) would be relatively low. Thank you. --CrunchySkies (talk) 07:21, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It is still a petition site. Open petitions are generally, if not always, violating WP:SOAPBOX, and the closed ones are only notable enough if there are independent reports on them.  For the few cases where they are suitable, we have a whitelist to whitelist the specific link, hence .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 07:46, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

DZone NetBeans Zone


It seems that the whole dzone.com is blocked for some reason? I am trying to add an interview for Kojo conducted by DZone with the Kojo author Lalit Pant: netbeans.dzone.com/learn-scala-with-kojo
 * to request blacklist exceptions for specific pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:19, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

nofluoride.com
Please remove nofluoride.com from your blacklist. It is a website that contains information about and references to scientific studies that show fluoride's negative affects on human health. The website has a variety of anecdotal information in addition to links to solid technical references. In particular, the page www\.nofluoride\.com/Government_Studies.cfm has a list of references to government studies pertaining to the effects of fluoride on human physiology. It is important for the general public and the wikipedia community to have access to this information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.251.6.67 (talk • contribs) 00:30, 7 September 2012‎‎
 * ❌ First of all, Wikipedia is not a WP:SOAPBOX. More importantly, reliable technical sources should be referenced directly, not via an advocacy site. OhNo itsJamie Talk 01:37, 7 September 2012 (UTC)

examiner.com


Hi, I was trying to fix a broken existing link to examiner.com. I found the original article, changed the link, and it told me it was blacklisted. I know there is quite a range of reliability on examiner.com, so I'm not going to try to advocate for them here. This is the link I was trying to put in: [blacklisted domain]/article/the-excommunication-of-elder-george-p-lee, to fix the broken one on the George_P._Lee page (which was [blacklisted domain]/x-19393-Salt-Lake-History-Examiner~y2009m8d31-The-excommunication-of-Elder-George-P-Lee) Michaeljsouth (talk) 06:51, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * This has to be fixed on the whitelist, . --Dirk Beetstra T  C 08:29, 8 September 2012 (UTC)

neighborhoodarchive.com


The Neighborhood Archive is an online archive of things pertaining to the children's television show Mister Rogers Neighborhood. It has in-depth episode descriptions, character bios, and countless other resources pertaining to the history of the show. The archive is purely an informational website and is not an organization. There has been a long complaint that The Neighborhood of Make-believe page lacks references. Nearly all of the information comes directly from the episodes and can be verified through the archive's episode descriptions. The website was blacklisted by Hu12 in July 2012 for spamming because of the frequent use of links on the The Neighborhood of Make-believe page. This is was not spamming, rather citing the source for the information in the article. The archive is the only available source of this information since the episodes are not available to the public. Please remove this site from the blacklist.

MrRN fan (talk) 23:59, 8 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved in spamming them, in apparent violation of Conflict of interest guidelines and particularly when alternate accounts are created to avoid detection. 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. In addition, this site is a fansite which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Adding 14 links to one page IS in fact, SPAM. --Hu12 (talk) 02:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Reference:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2012 Archive Jul 1
 * Lists 9 different accounts used to add these links.


 * Multiple accounts spammed these links. The site-owner ignored multiple warnings and didn't discuss his link additions ... until after the links were blacklisted.
 * Related domains:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * continued to "text" bomb his domain over multiple articles after decline and explainations. User has now been blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * continued to "text" bomb his domain over multiple articles after decline and explainations. User has now been blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * continued to "text" bomb his domain over multiple articles after decline and explainations. User has now been blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * continued to "text" bomb his domain over multiple articles after decline and explainations. User has now been blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)
 * continued to "text" bomb his domain over multiple articles after decline and explainations. User has now been blocked.--Hu12 (talk) 17:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)

freemasonrywatch.org
I don't know how to find why this has been logged as spam, therefore I assume that it has been objected by someone who does not want articles to contain this reference as the neutral point of view. I was trying to add it to an article which lacks the NPOV but it seems someone has erroneously or maliciously listed this as spam, as I have never tried to post this link before I fail to see how it can be spam. It is also not been used for promotion but to give NPOV balance in an article which lacks some.

This link is erroniously flagged as spam, on trying to use this link to give a NPOV on the "Talix hoax" allegedly the link has been blacklisted for spam — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSpaceBetween2 (talk • contribs) 00:39, 12 September 2012‎
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/July_2012 --Hu12 (talk) 05:09, 12 September 2012 (UTC)

= Troubleshooting and problems =

= Discussion =