MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2008/04

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=6078136&blogID=368671432
This page would be used as a citation in Girl Talk for the line "However, Gillis has said explicitly that the leak is not his work and that he's still working on the album." I don't want the whole site, however this is the only primary source for the statement (the musician wrote the blog post himself calling the leak a fake). --Yono (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Hu12 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! --Yono (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

www.lulu.com
Home page of Lulu (publisher), therefore necessary external link on the article about the company. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ I've whitelisted lulu's homepage (www.lulu.com/en/index.php) and all the links that are used as references in the Lulu (publisher) article. thanks Michael--Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

www.stageandscreenonline.com/_Media/DavidArnoldPart3.mp3
Hi. The site contains interviews with numerous notable composers. Unfortunately, the guy maintaining the site was unaware of WP:EL and added links to the interviews to a bunch of articles, resulting in their being tagged as spam. I'm hoping to get the site removed from the blacklist, as there's some golden material in these interviews, but I'm waiting for assurance from the owner of the site (which is non-commercial, btw) that he won't do it again. In the meantime, I'd like to cite material from this particular interview in the Quantum of Solace article. Hopefully, that won't be too controversial, as one other interview from the site has already been added to the whitelist to allow this section to be written in another article. All the best, Steve  T • C 21:14, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * ✅. Your page is whitelisted. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:18, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * My thanks are yours. Steve  T • C 07:12, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html
On the page Uwe Boll, in particular, there is a petition in support of him and his movies. To be fair and show both points of view, if there is a petition in favor of him linked on the page, there should also be a link to a petition in opposition of this view. In 3 days anyways. 135,000 in opposition, and last I checked, 14 in favor of him. Evilsmoo (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ The other non-notable petition was removed correctly; there's already a link to an article about the topic in the article. Kuru  talk  01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I did make sure to sign to petition while I was there, of course... :)  Kuru  talk  01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fair 'nuff. Waste of time to do anything with the page, I guess. Up to 168,000 as of 4-10-08 now, heh. Evilsmoo (talk) 21:04, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A good reference should be unblocked
http: / /transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/louis_bleriot is blacklisted, and I was trying to use it as a reference. I don't see any possible reason it could spam the website, and I believe it is a legitimate web site for research. STYROFOAM1994 talkReview me! 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Several concerns. Suite101 articles are realy no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Here are the rules which govern this issue:
 * ”Verifiability” — Wikipedia's core content policy. In particular:
 * "Verifiable Reliable Sources"
 * ”Self-published sources (online and paper)”
 * ”Reliable sources” Guideline about particular types of sources
 * ”Self-published sources”
 * Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation or source, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are probably other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available?--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Well, there aren't that many sources about Bleriot on the internet, and I don't have books that have as much info. STYROFOAM1994 talkReview me! 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Most of the same information appears to be present at http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Bleriot/DI11.htm, as well as any number of other sites that show up on a search for "Louis Bleriot" on Google. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 08:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ per above. Max S em(Han shot first!) 09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

revolution.int.tf
This site gets caught by the spam filter, but it doesn't seem to appear on any of the Blacklists. Try to add it yourself and you'll see what happens. But I couldn't find the address on the global or local spam lists. What is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.68.97 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * The int.tf domain is blacklisted on the meta blacklist as a redirection service. Just use the site's real address: http://www.anticapitalista.com/irevo/ Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:47, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Closed per Zetawoof, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

phoenixtrail.ontheinter.net
This link is to a community based website that provides interesting background information to the creation of the Phoenic Trail as well as construction photographs and as such is a valuable resource. For use on Phoenix Trail page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carinya (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * " phoenixtrail.ontheinter.net is not in use." Typo? Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:43, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

❌ per Zetawoof -- Herby talk thyme 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

www.commonpurpose.org
This is an obvious external link for Common Purpose UK. Suggestions? Rangenews (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Rangenews
 * Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not vehicle for advertising. Additionally the site has been responsible for excessive link placement on multiple wiki's. I see no benefit to wikipeda to consider this at this point. --Hu12 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

z15.invisionfree.com
My site is currently located on the z15 server of invisionfree.com (put one and one to gether and you get the domain. Is it possible to whitelist just my site?  If I need to contact an admin please tell me so (use my talk page).  I'll give the link....hopefully.  ArmoredPersonel (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
 * We generally don't whitelist domains for links on user pages. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I second the invisionfree whitelist, since I am attempting to edit the article of an online alliance (clan) with references from various statements from that alliance's government, which can only be found on z15.invisionfree.com. See Nordreich.  The spam blacklist is preventing me from adding numerous such citations.  --208.191.51.69 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Web forums are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia articles. You'll need to find a more reliable source for the article. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives to use that are not WP:LINKSTOAVOID. --Hu12 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)
 * So I guess I'll just have to forget about citing the article, or mirror the statements somewhere? --208.191.51.69 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I think you misunderstand the concept of primary sources. How do you know the information on your site is correct?  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

www.anitalyattraction.com
Provides info on tourist sites in Italy. Tirkfl (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Unlikely to be whitelisted, as it was involved in a large spam incident. Here's the WP:SPAM report. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Closed - ❌. More for a web directory than an encyclopaedia I think -- Herby  talk thyme 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

lulu.com/content/1997895
The above link has been blacklisted on the wikipedia page Jack Says. There is a link to where you can find out more about the graphic novel prequel to the film. I have seen that www.lulu.com was initially blacklisted and has since been whitelisted. The link I wish to be whitelisted is just a specific part of lulu.com Tobymeredith (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * the link serves to sell a book, please use an apropriate citation using the ISBN: 978-0-9556927-0-3. --Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

www.cais-soas.com
This is the The         Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, once part of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and still hosted by them. It has a good academic reputation - I've no idea why it is blacklisted. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This site was blocked at meta after being identified on the English Wikipedia as a significant violator of copyrights back in May 2007. See the ANI thread that discussed it.  If this site is no longer to be considered inappropriate (and I don't have an opinion on that at the moment) it probably ought to be removed from meta rather than white listed here. -- SiobhanHansa 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)
 * No assertion or evidence of permission, this site violates WP:Copyrights, Linking to copyrighted works.--Hu12 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

www.beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm
This website is a good tutorial site about SQL Programming. It teaches SQL programming in a simple way. Also it covers a wide range of topics in SQL. It will be a good technical resource for Wiki users who would like to learn SQL Programming. I thought of adding the link in the SQL related pages. But I see it is blocked. No idea why? Please unblock it and add it in the SQL related pages. --Tuitapak (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * — Tuitapak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. -- A. B. (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
 * It was blocked (at meta request) because the site had been hacked and hosted malicious scripting. As I recall (though I can't currently find the discussion) the site owner made attempts to fix it and requested it be removed from blacklisting but the issue persisted and the request was turned down.  In any case white listing would appear to be inappropriate.  If the site is clean and suitable assurances made that it is no longer vulnerable a request should be made to de-blacklist at the meta blacklist.  In the meantime I'd suggest trying to find a similar site that been better maintained. -- SiobhanHansa 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, I have raised a request to de-blacklist in the blacklist page you have suggested above. I tested the above link in the linkscanner.com and found the website is clean and it is not vulnerable. The reason for suggesting this website is, it discusses some topics in detail like sql integrity constraints, sql subquery, sql joins etc. There are many websites on sql programming, but most of them do not discuss these topics in detail. Try to remove this website from blacklisting if you find, it meets wiki's requirements. Thank You. --202.62.80.3 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — Tuitapak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * The question is: will this site remain safe? It was already hacked several times, how can we be sure that it won't happen again? Max S em(Han shot first!) 08:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2007
 * Accounts            --Hu12 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * beginner-sql-tutorial.com, is a known site that has previously transmitted exploit code --Hu12 (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

I saw the link you posted above. Seems it was infected before. Think it is fixed now. I find it safe. Being a user of this website, I can asure this website is clean now. You can test the link www.beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm or beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm. If you still find this link is a risk after few days you can remove the link. Also I am not interested in beginner-sql-tutorial.com directly, i would like to add the sublinks which are more useful to the visitors like beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql-integrity-constraints.htm beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql-joins.htm beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql-subquery.htm

I find these links are safe. Give a try. Thank You.--202.62.80.3 (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Known site that has previously transmitted exploit code, too much risk to wikipedia and its users. Please do not make further requests. --Hu12 (talk) 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com

 * associatedcontent.com/faq.html#C6
 * associatedcontent.com/faq.html#J6
 * associatedcontent.com/faq.html#K
 * associatedcontent.com (for the home page only)

These links are appropriate for the Associated Content article as an external link to the official site and as verification for non controversial assertions about itself. I don't believe there are suitable alternative urls that provide the same quality of verification in this circumstance. I'm not sure if the anchors used on the FAQ links mean these require separate listing or not.

If the FAQ page itself can be listed so it can be used with any anchor that might be useful to help editors expand the article more easily in the future and shouldn't really open us up to more spamming or inappropriate links on other articles (I don't think). -- SiobhanHansa 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've Whited the whole faq page ( http:// www.associatedcontent.com/faq.html# ) and http:// www.associatedcontent.com/index.html. Make sure they are in the correct format. ✅--Hu12 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Why don't we just tweak the blacklist regex to catch only associatedcontent.com/article/? Max S em(Han shot first!) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * This is soley for the article Associated Content. There are many non /article/ links that do not meet specific requirements for inclusion and have potential for abuse. In instances when these may be needed as a citation, we can cross that bridge on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context).--Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm cleaning up the Anna May Wong page, and I see that a very good and lengthy article on the actress is blocked. I can't even post the link here. Is this intentional? Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * And, incidentally, the block blacks out ALL the references at the page. Dekkappai (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I've removed all blocked links, you can continue editing. The problem with this site is that it cannot be considered a reliable source, so people shouldn't reference articles with links to it. Max S em(Han shot first!) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * OK-- I looked through it and see it's basically a Wiki. Looked like a good article to me, sorry for the reversion. Thanks for the explanation. Dekkappai (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is it possible that the "reliable source" argument is a little misused on Associated Content - considering that in blacklisting it, reviews and opinions are also being blocked? For example, Associated Content takes the place of some blogs, and in many articles, it discusses blog responses - clearly in a debate about fact, AC cannot be introduced, but it seems problematic to omit it when discussing opinion.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No
 * Associated Content links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * 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) 17:04, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

www.squidoo.com/abolishthedeathpenalty
This is a live debate on the death penalty which I think could usefully be added to the capital punishment debate article. At the moment there is a link to the Wiki reason article on capital punishment but this is in hibernation. Firehorsefish (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems its a promotion/”Self-published” piece for deathwatchinternational.org, by DeathWatchInternational . They seem to already have a link in the article. Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. --Hu12 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

I really don't understand this. This is not self promotion it is a debate hosted by Death Watch International. Also, there is no link in this article to Death Watch International that I can see - even if there is one in the main Capital Punishment article. Finally, I am not sure what these reliable and verifiable alternative debate sites are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firehorsefish (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Look to the right of the article.."Hi, I'm DeathWatchInternational, Death Watch International campaigns to end the use of the death penalty around the world. www.deathwatchinternational.org, more Death Watch International campaigns to end the use of the death penalty around the world."


 * In addition, squidoo.com links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * 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) 14:26, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

www.fireflakes.quotaless.com
This link should be white listed for an article about The Fireflakes, It's the official site of the Band, and I don't see any sort of trace of spam in it.--Fireflakes (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * , WP:SPA role accout for Fireflakes. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

www.WudangQuan.Com
This page was previously listed on wikipedias page for "WudangQuan" but has now been blacklisted. I beieve that the content is completely relevant, the site is not monetized in any way, and guess the the blacklist could only be competitor sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.158.68 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Do you know if any established Wikipedia editors are interested in the link? I suggest raising the question at Talk:Wudangquan and seeing if others think this article needs to have this link.


 * As for sabotage, that's pretty serious: do you have some evidence of this we can look into? Who would want to do this sort of thing, especially since you're saying this is a relevant site with no ads?


 * Meanwhile, I'll start double-checking the batch of domains that were blacklisted together back in February to make sure we didn't miss some clue.


 * Thanks, -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * So far, I'm not seeing sabotage, but I do see that we missed some related domains back in February that should have also been blacklisted:
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll catch these up now. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's more of this guy's spam:


 * Still no sign of sabotage, but I'll look some more after I get these blacklisted. Thanks for flagging this one.
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)


 * whitelisting
 * ✅: further blacklisting
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict). I'm going to decline this. There is no "competitor sabotage", just evidence of the owner soliciting the spamming of wikipedia, and attempting to be sneaky in having it removed.

eslsociety. I also recomend the additional domains that were missed, also be added.--Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Additional spam for hire Accounts:

www.sveti-stefan.net
This website is specific and made just for touristic informationS about Sveti Stefan which is famous tourist place in Montenegro. And this site is not, for sure, a spam. There are lot of other sites on your page about Sveti Stefan, but www.sveti-stefan.net is much precise than other, because it's exactly about the topic. I can not find any reason why my website is blacklisted, so I will be very thankful to see that my website is unblocked and returned on the white-list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdjuras (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not whitelist domains in response to 'site-owners' requests. Instead, we whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of a link because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may possibly be removed. .--Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

www.miysvit.info
I want to change my old site (www.miysvit.com it was there for 1,5 year, now it was closed)  to my new site (www.miysvit.info) to all your page. Tell my, whay I can't do it ? and remove my site(www.miysvit.info) to your whitelist (unbloc my site please) I must replace all old links to new links in my new site. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbnet2000 (talk • contribs) 21:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * You haven't provided any reason why a Wikipedia article needs your site. Furthermore, posting links to your own site is a conflict-of-interest issue. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Can I change my old links in wiki, to new links , in this page - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lavra_Belltower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gate_Church_of_the_Trinity_%28Pechersk_Lavra%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Saviour_at_Berestove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Caves and another pages

www.mysvit.com to  www.miysvit.info  (only in english version ) and on main page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kiev_Pechersk_Lavra  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbnet2000 (talk • contribs) 21:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I guess you didn't read WP:COI. Wikipedia doesn't need commercial links. Please don't add them again. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

This is not comersial link this is virtual museum. Please tell my who want to change old links and what shoud I do to change old links, that is not work. in there page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Lavra_Belltower http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gate_Church_of_the_Trinity_%28Pechersk_Lavra%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_of_the_Saviour_at_Berestove http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Near_Caves
 * It's your own site, and it has ads. That makes it commercial and a conflict of interest. The links have been removed. OhNo itsJamie Talk 21:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

if I will remove ads in my site, can i change links in wiki ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mbnet2000 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Seems the account was Suspended, along with excessive crosswiki spamming
 * Accounts
 * Accounts


 * Please read,
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * How not to be a spammer
 * External links policy
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * --Hu12 (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

zoebelkin.quotaless.com/site/bio.html
This is to be used as a citation on Zoë Belkin, but can't because quotaless.com is in the title. This isn't a bad site, just the quotaless.com part is, not the mini-site. ~ Cheers! Dreamy  §  13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Is this a reliable sources? Equally are there any alternatives? I know it has been a while - sorry - -- Herby  talk thyme 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * First, yes, I believe this one site to be an RS. I have not found any alternatives, though I have only gone to about the seventh page on google... And thirdly, I truthfully could have waited longer. ~ Cheers! Dreamy   §  23:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How is that a reliable source? It's a fan page with advertising. OhNo itsJamie Talk 23:28, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Closed as ❌ per Jamie, thanks -- Herby talk thyme 12:40, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

www.lom.com
I am not sure why this site is blacklisted. They are a Bermuda financial services company and the only place you can get independent third-party research on Bermuda Stock Exchange companies through their Blue Book publication. I just wanted to add a link to their research on Butterfield Bank to the external links section of the Butterfield Bank wiki entry. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.228.145.131 (talk) 23:04, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the original blacklisting request:
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2


 * Was there a specific web page you wanted to use from that site? If so, please provide the web address without the "http://" part. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

I actually work for LOM and a local Bermudian client emailed me this link and said we were blacklisted from Wikipedia and I came here to investigate. I took a look at the original blacklisting request link and could not determine the infringing practice that caused LOM to be banned in the first place. Could you help me determine what questionable activities were done so that I can immediately put a stop to them? We have a strict policy of not working with vendors that engage in anything but the most honest and straightforward practices. Aimerlamer (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC) Aimerlamer (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners or employees requests. Instead, we whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of 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 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) 19:48, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

OK, if to maintain the quality of wikipedia, it is necessary to blacklist a domain without any clear explanation then that's LOM's problem. If at some point you do want to enhance the breadth of the en.wikipedia article on Butterfield Bank with independent research on the company you can find it at www.lom.com/butterfield-bank-group. Seriously, thanks for fighting spam and making the internet a better place. Mikote (talk) 21:30, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

please add to whitelist this page is of the porn actor shane diesel this is the yahoo group of this actor ,,contains a lot of information brings over of this actor and in addition it has more than 500 photos something very difficultly to find in any other place on the net ,,,, groups.yahoo.com/group/shanediesel/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Peluso33 (talk • contribs) 19:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Accounts

xmail.net/evanlong/tcc/Columbine_Attack_Government_Document_Library.html
A listing of links to public domain government documents concerning the 1999 bombing/shooting at Columbine high School. Xmail.net has been blacklisted but is an e-mail service providing free web space like geocities.com Evan long account (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)


 * For an event like that I would imagine there were plenty of satisfactory alternatives? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 13:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The page is simply on a blacklisted hosting service (Xmail.net); that's why it won't post. Considering that the host has nothing to do with the content, that is an illogical approach to blacklisting.  What would be more "satisfactory" about the same page on a different server?  Please evaluate the request based on the content of the page.  Evan long account (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Hum - I have just noticed given the name of the page you require whitelisting & your user name that there might be a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia requires reliable sources too.  The issue is not the content but whether than content can be gleaned from a better source (I realise you may not see it that way if you have an interest in the page).  I'll step back & let others deal with this I think -- Herby  talk thyme 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Whomever is moderating these requests, Xmail.net has been blacklisted for reasons unknown. It is a free web hosting provider on which the users do not necessarily have anything to do with each other.  This approach makes about as much sense as blacklisting all web sites registered by a particular pay site.  I have requested a whitelisting for this page and received nothing but assumptions and insults from "Herby" for my efforts. Evan long account (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)


 * . Personal pages are not a reliable source, citing yourself is bad practice, no attempt has been made to justify the link by reference to its content, relevance, authority or encyclopaedic merit. Guy (Help!) 20:53, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

ARA Santísima Trinidad (1948)
I would request that the following link be unblocked for use in the article ARA Santísima Trinidad (1948). The link is to a photo of this ship taken in 1965, when she had the name Comodoro Augusto Lasserre (Q-9). In the photo, it is clear that she had been disarmed by this date. www.suite101.com/view_image.cfm/198319 --Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Please also unblock the following articles, because they are useful as references: --Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)
 * naval-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_tacoma_class_frigates_pf03 The Tacoma Class Frigates PF-03, The Forgotten Expendables of The Navy, by Christopher Eger, 8 July 2007
 * naval-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_post_war_life_of_the_tacomas The Post War Life of the Tacomas, The Frigates of the PF-03 Class Served 14 Different Navies, by Christopher Eger, 9 July 2007


 * Accepting that this probably isn't widely available information Wikipedia does requires reliable sources. Is this one & are there any alternatives? I know it has been a while - sorry - -- Herby  talk thyme 07:19, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Other information in the article referenced above that I checked was accurate. The photo is particularly valuable, since you can tell a lot from a dated photo.--Toddy1 (talk) 03:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, here are links to numerous discussions of suite101.com and its spam and reliability problems. The earlier discussions contain the most useful comments; the later discussions are largely just repetitions of the early stuff:
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133
 * Articles for deletion/Suite101.com
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2006-12
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-02
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-04
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-08
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-10
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-12
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2008-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2008-03
 * Suite101.com is self-published material and not a reliable source.
 * : links to text articles. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:21, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ -- link to image.
 * Thanks for your work on these naval topics. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:26, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * P.S. I've assumed that even though this is suite101.com, an image is an image is an image. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 23:01, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for allowing the link to the image - however, when I tried to put the link in to the image, I hit the white list block. Help.--Toddy1 (talk) 17:23, 23 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry, it was a typo on my part. Try again:
 * http://suite101.com/view_image.cfm/198319
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 18:33, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks - it worked.--Toddy1 (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html
(Thread copied from Mediawiki talk:Spam Blacklist It's silly to block this site, it's needed for a reference in Uwe Boll. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 11:35, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * In 99.9% (and maybe more) of the additions of these links are not appropriate (per WP:SOAPBOX). Specific cases should be whitelisted.  Hope this explains.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:37, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * http://www.petiti STUPID SPAM FILTER ononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?RRH53888 is needed for a citation, please whitelist it. --Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason 12:40, 11 April 2008 (UTC)
 * --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * This is a special case. A petition was explicitly referred to in this Guardian news article. Please read the section in the Uwe Boll article in question and whitelist the site. -- Hinotori(talk) 01:58, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * seems http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,,2271690,00.html solves the issue of having to whitelist.--Hu12 (talk) 02:11, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The article does not link the petition referred to, and the article's information is already quickly becoming outdated (48,000 signatures referred to as opposed to the 214,211 signatures as of this edit). Seeing as it has been referred to by a notable source, why would it be taboo to provide a citation in the reference section to the updated petition itself? -- Hinotori(talk) 03:37, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oops! Never mind. It seems Dirk Beetstra already did whitelist the site. I saw the approval, but I ran into problems because I was trying to cite it as written in the section title and not as Ævar Arnfjörð Bjarmason wrote exactly. I've added the citation in the reference section. Hope this is ok. Thanks a lot, Dirk. -- Hinotori(talk) 03:44, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Invisionfree
Please do not block a specific site in Invisionfree. It's a good site,it'a a forum about Monster Allergy that I only know. Please reply as soon as you read this. - Retsnom Adedekutsu (talk) 04:25, 14 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Retsnom Adedekutsu (talk • contribs) 04:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You have to give us a little more information. What specific page do you want to use? -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:34, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Appears to be an SPA for Monster Allergy‎ related forums/chat links, which are all Links normally to be avoided --Hu12 (talk) 14:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-vetscor/1427139/posts
This page should be whitelisted because it contains valuable information about Soviet T-44 medium tank including memories of Soviet tank crew member who talks about vehicle's drawbacks, advantages and repair methods. - SuperTank17 (talk) 12:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * There are two issues with this: first, Free Republic is not a reliable source; second, it is pretty clear that not all that material originated on Free Republic, but there is no attribution and no acknowledgement of sourcing or permission. Freep has a historical problem with rampant copyright violation (see L. A. Times v. Free Republic), so we'd need to be sure we were not party to copyright infringement. Guy (Help!) 20:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)


 * due to copyright concerns. Try Googling portions of the interview to see if you can find the original. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:30, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

bossanovamusic.net/en/5-bossa/index.html
I'd like to ask you to whitelist the link bossanovamusic.net/en/5-bossa/index.html since it's very vital for Bossa Nova ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bossa_nova ) since this site contains informations and nice visual and audio illustrations not contained in other sites about this subject. Thank you! 78.142.160.178 (talk) 11:12, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Here's the original blacklist request:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-08


 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.


 * The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:40, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * You didn't give one (!) reason why the website is unworthy to be used as ADDITIONAL link reference to the subject Bossa Nova, what you don't like on that website, etc. But actually I didn't expect you to do it anyway. PS: I'm not the owner of that website, but this won't interest you anyway since you didn't make the effort to analize the CONTENT of the information provided by that website. 78.142.160.178 (talk) 09:49, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Clearly cross wiki spamming as evidenced above. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of " content", the internet may be full of good material, but Wikipedia is not a directory to that content. Wikipedia is NOT a "repository of links". Please see the welcome page and Civility.--Hu12 (talk) 10:06, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

becomingapua.com
Hi, it is currently blacklisted as I think a recall a person a while back trying to agreesively add a link to this on every single page that was vaguely related. As this is no longer going on at this is a site that could actually be used to build up additional info for articles on seduction it would greatly help if this was unblocked (you can see my history that I've been an editor for years and years without ever doing any spamming, so I'm obviously was not the cause of the original blacklisting)

I found just now again about the blacklisting as I was trying to add on an extra source to a page I'm just starting up again in my userspace about Savoy (to build it up first before I put it in mainspace, as currently it is a very very rough sub sub stub status) yet I would save the changes due to there already existing the becomingapua.com link in the page as a references from when I started off that page way back. Thanks. Mathmo Talk 06:40, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Oppose The owner of this site was serially spamming external links across two dozen articles, which had to be reverted hundreds of times. The domain was added to the AntiSpamBot, but the spammer started circumventing the bot by reverting and not adding the domain. Then it was blacklisted: original discussion here. When this domain and a redirect domain (bapua.com) were blocked, he started spamming with another redirected domain (becomingapickupartist.com). Discussion here. If the block is lifted, he'll probably be back as there have been additional spamming incidents involving this webmaster. Details here. The site is a blog, is not considered a reliable source, and should never be used for a biography of a living person. dissolve  talk  06:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:08, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

theatrehistory.suite101.com
Needed for a source for H.M. Tennent. Few other sources available. No clear reason for blacklisting. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:04, 18 April 2008 (UTC)


 * suite101.com links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * 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) 07:03, 22 April 2008 (UTC)


 * For the record, here are links to numerous discussions of suite101.com and its spam and reliability problems. The earlier discussions contain the most useful comments; the later discussions are largely just repetitions of the early stuff:
 * Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion/Suite101.com
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2006 Archive Dec
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Feb
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jan
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Jul
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Mar
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Nov 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Oct
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Feb 1
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Mar 2
 * Administrators' noticeboard/Archive133
 * Articles for deletion/Suite101.com
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2006-12
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-02
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-04
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-08
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-10
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2007-12
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2008-01
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/2008-03
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

petitiononline.com/sos02082/petition-sign.html
it s just a petition, like others! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.165.47.146 (talk) 20:52, 13 April 2008 (UTC)


 * . Wikipedia is not the place to drum up signatures on your petition. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

kmle.com
1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted: I wish to fix the link to the site on the wikipedia article mentioning it.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link: KMLE Medical Dictionary

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added:

www.kmle.com -> for the main site

www.kmle.com/dview.php?view=news1 -> for the reference section

Note: this site has been discussed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals — 123.108.165.108 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.


 * Search aggregators are Links normally to be avoided. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Along with kmle's extensive negative history, this is --Hu12 (talk) 06:42, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

repossession-stoppers.com
I have tried to add a link to www.repossession-stoppers.com/repossession-law.htm but it says my site is blacklisted and I have had a message saying it isn't a relevant link. I am not sure why you say this, as this page contains all the legal terms explaining repossession law. It is the only page on the web which contains such an extensive list of these terms and their explanations. Why don't you want this on your page? At least if you don't want this page then aren't you limiting user help? as you don't provide this information yourself? I offered this link in good faith so if you don't want the link on page then at least please remove it from your blacklist. 86.148.230.154 (talk) 09:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Accounts used in repeated spamming
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' 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.
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' 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.


 * Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.--Hu12 (talk) 11:05, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Why did the site get blacklisted? Because the page has useful information on - I thought that was what you wanted? The page isnt spam! It is the only page on the web which listed all the definitions!! Anyway, if you do not want the link I would still appreciate it being removed from your blacklist as I do not want the site to be associated with spam. Thank you. — 86.148.230.154 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
 * Here are the applicable rules:
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * Source soliciting
 * How not to be a spammer
 * External links policy
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * BLOCK
 * Persistent spamming
 * Accounts that appear, based on their edit history, to exist for the sole or primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization in apparent violation of Conflict of interest or anti-spam guidelines.--Hu12 (talk) 13:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Domain:


 * Please look at the warnings you were left on the talk pages of the three anonymous accounts you used (list above). The hyperlinks you were provided lead to the relevant content and editorial rules.


 * I'm surprised and concerned that you were still trying to add your links in spite of the earlier warnings.


 * I note we did not blacklist the other two domains spammed:
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

komendant.cal.pl
As a speaker of Polish language I don't see anything violating our policies there at a quick glance, rather it is a portal dedicated to en:Józef Piłsudski and as such its addition to articles related to him is relatively relevant. It has been added by an anon to various language wikis that have entry on Piłsudski, which led to blacklisting it on meta.wikimedia.org. I was told that we have to whitelist it here as there are no sufficient grounds for removing it from meta, and my request for further explanation was simply archived - seems to me like some petty bureacratization, but here I am. Do note that the link was quickly whitelisted at pl wikipedia, within hours of being blacklisted on meta.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 22:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
 * (be_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 10:51:56 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Юзэф Пілсудскі] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (simple_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 11:01:41 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Jozef Pilsudski] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (es_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 14:33:13 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Józef Piłsudski] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (fr_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 14:35:42 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Józef Piłsudski] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (it_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 14:36:36 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Józef Piłsudski] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (ru_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 14:40:07 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Пилсудский, Юзеф] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (uk_wikipedia) 2008-04-05 14:41:16 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Пілсудський Юзеф] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * (en_wikipedia) 2008-03-02 01:24 -- http://komendant.cal.pl/ added to: [Józef Piłsudski] by 212.182.107.222 -- diff
 * Fails El. I don't see any reason or use for this link here. There seems to be no need to open the english wikipedia up to a comfirmed spamlink. sorry.--Hu12 (talk) 22:44, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

myresistor.com

 * The following discussion is archived. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

My website (myresistor.com) has been blacklisted as I tried to add an external link to it in the [Resistor] page. For an unknown reason, the contributer User A1 thought it was a spam link and undone my update. I have talked to the contributer [User Talk] and he agreed to put the link back but he also was not able to do so because the website has already been blacklisted. The website offers a resistor color code calculator better than the one which is currently linked to in the external links section. This calculator has been designed based on the information in the wiki page, unlike others. It also supports 4-band and 5-band resistor color codes which is not supported in other online calculators. I would really apreciate it if you can remove the website from the blacklist so I can link to again.

Thanks --Imarzouka (talk) 11:53, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also spamming

Adsense pub-2941481051944299
 * Cross wiki spamming myresistor.com
 * Cross wiki spamming myresistor.com


 * http://da.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciel:Bidrag/86.108.122.69
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spezial:Beitr%C3%A4ge/86.108.122.69
 * http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.122.69
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.122.69
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciale:Contributi/86.108.122.69
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciaal:Bijdragen/86.108.122.69
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/86.108.122.69
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Specjalna:Wk%C5%82ad/86.108.122.69


 * Cross wiki spamming ledcalculator.net
 * Cross wiki spamming ledcalculator.net


 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://sv.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.126.252
 * http://nl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.126.252
 * http://it.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.126.252
 * http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.126.252
 * http://ar.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/86.108.126.252
 * http://tr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://pt.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://pl.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://ja.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://fr.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34
 * http://es.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/79.173.232.34


 * May want to review;
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * Source soliciting
 * How not to be a spammer
 * External links policy
 * Links normally to be avoided
 * Advertising and conflicts of interest
 * Conflict of interest
 * Editors who have a conflict of interest
 * Accounts used for promotion
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * We do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.--Hu12 (talk) 13:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Hi, I have read these links you have provided about spamming and I have not violated any of the rules. I am not a spammer and these websites (ledcalculator.net and myresistor.com) do not advertise any product and are not affilates of any kind. I have developed them to help people with electronic circuit design and this is their only intention. Having links to them in related wikipedia articles, about resistors and LEDs, are useful to the readers of the articles. I have also added them to other wikipedia languages because I know they will be useful. No intention of spamming. If you think otherwise, please explain. And please explain the specific reason why they got blacklisted. I do not see any violations here.

Thanks --Imarzouka (talk) 14:46, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank you, but we don't need "additions" like that. Period. Max S em(Han shot first!) 15:13, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

www.invisionfree.com
The www domain doesn't contain any boards (they're all under subdomains) and it's a pretty obvious external link on InvisionFree. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)


 * invisionfree has a pretty bad history with en wp (this gives an idea). The url is stated on the page you mention, I think there may well be reluctance to whitelist the site.  Any other views?  Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
 * try adding www\.invisionfree\.com\b to the WL that should prevent any subdomain links while allowing linkage to the main site. βcommand 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * If we can whitelist just the homepage or (if you can find one) an about page without opening up access for boards to spam us again I don't see a problem with that. An alternative for the article might be to use http://www.zathyus.com/history.html which is a link to the parent company of InvisionFree.  It contains a direct link to the InvisionFree site and in someways provides greater encyclopedic information than a link to the site itself (which seems to provide virtually no information about itself as an entity).  -- SiobhanHansa 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * SiobhanHansa's idea works for me. Even more informative, thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)


 * The Zathyus link works, although it's a bit circuitous. Incidentally, I stand corrected on my statement that www.invisionfree.com is safe - there are alternate URLs for boards under there. However, whitelisting the main page only (www\.invisionfree\.com/$) would make things a little easier. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

www.tkmc.com.au
The "external links" section of the Krav Maga article is stale and somewhat lacking in variety (there is only a single US link). Some international resources would be very useful; such as tkmc.com.au - an informative Australian Krav Maga site. -- Somersault (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Not blacklisted: . Go ahead and add it. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Try to enter it on the site yourself, a spam error comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.34.2 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks like you figured it out yourself. For the record, there was a link (elsewhere on the page) to Associated Content, which is blacklisted. Zetawoof(&zeta;) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=13330687&blogID=60220717
The link is to the Gin Blossoms' (band) myspace blog for use in the Gin Blossoms entry They indicate that they are writing material for a new album, but wikipedia has blacklisted all "blog.myspace.com" links. The Gin Blossoms and many other bands and celebrities in general have myspace sites and post information on them that occasionally cannot be found anywhere else. Not allowing a credible link from a myspace blog would be impartial to those who don't have other any means of relaying certain information. The link is just to a specific entry in from the Gin Blossoms' blog and therefore should be whitelisted. 75.31.16.171 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a reliable source? Equally are there any alternatives? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 07:20, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=131524338&blogID=367949845
To be used as a reference for the discography/remixes by the Freemasons for their WP page, Freemasons (band). This is taken from their official MySpace page, and is currently the only place where they maintain an up-to-date list of the discography and news on future releases.
 * Is this a reliable source? Equally are there any alternatives? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 07:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

www.5min.com
I want to add the following line to the Jenna Jameson article: "Jameson has also appeared on the "Household Hints from Adult Stars" segment on the Man Show in a skit explaining how to properly clean candlesticks ." Can I do so? --FeldBum (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a reliable source? Equally are there any alternatives? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 07:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

www.comedybox.tv/comic-video-the+meeting
I was trying to add this to the page on Michael Greco. This series of videos is his latest filmed work, and is not hosted anywhere else. He's a reasonably famous soap actor, and this is his first filmed acting work in a few years.NathanielTapley (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this a reliable source? Equally are there any alternatives? Thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 07:23, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

www.fgoc.co.uk
This is the website of the Ford Galaxy Owners Club - the club is officially recognised by Ford Motor Co in the UK & US as being as such. I have added it to the Ford Galaxy page in the past, but somebody keeps removing it. The last time I tried to add it to the page it flagged as spam. The club is a not-for-profit organisation created to help other Galaxy Owners with any technical problems, advice for modifying etc etc etc and is free to join. I can only see that this link will provide people with much more than the Ford Galaxy wiki can ever provide due to the size of the club and the information it receives direct from Ford Motors. The listing for Ford Focus has a link to the Ford Focus owners club, so why can't the Ford Galaxy have one? HairyPlateEater (talk) 21:51, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * It is blacklisted becuase of the link placement that took place (report here). Bear in mind Wikipedia is an encyclopedia not some form of web directory, thanks -- Herby  talk thyme 07:25, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

commonpurpose.org.uk
References and the external link on the article Common Purpose UK are broken as commonpurpose.org.uk is blacklisted. Please whitelist the following links:
 * www.commonpurpose.org.uk/
 * www.commonpurpose.org.uk/System/aspx/GetFile.aspx?id=5903
 * www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/aboutus.aspx
 * www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/programmes.aspx
 * www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/aboutus/sponsors.aspx

Thanks - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I have added:
 * \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk\/System\/aspx/GetFile\.aspx\?id=5903\b
 * \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk\/home\/aboutus\.aspx\b
 * \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk\/home\/programmes\.aspx\b
 * \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk\/home/\aboutus\/sponsors\.aspx\b
 * I am not sure about the first one, as that would just be the same as removing the item from the blacklist, while that was just the problem (link pushing and cover-up by commonpurpose ips. Hope this helps.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 18:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks! How about whitelisting www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home.aspx which allows linking to their homepage but not sub-pages?  Alternatively, you could unblacklist the site, but block the ip range responsible for spamming.  - Crosbiesmith (talk) 18:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I am going for the former solution, adding \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk\/home\.aspx\b. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks again! - Crosbiesmith (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com
The weird thing is Im not fully sure the whole site is blacklisted as it even has a Wikipedia article on the site. I used some backup sources for some facts (my main source was a Times article) for the article Anna May Wong. It let me post my major update and then when I went to fix a broken html in the legacy part it wont let me and tells me said link is 'blacklisted' though its apparently letting other people edit the page. Help! --Thegingerone (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
 * Associated Content links:
 * Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
 * Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
 * 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) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (UTC)