MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2009/01

Suite101.com
Granted, specific articles by its writers may be unsourced (although standards are improving), but I'm trying to write an article about the company itself and I'm stuck on the fact that I can't include a link in the infobox.--otherlleft (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Is there an index.html which is whitelistable? Whitelisting the whole domain will result in the old problems.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I will find out.--otherlleft (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * How about http://www.suite101.com/about/ ?--otherlleft (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm still getting the spam warning when I try to use this link. Is there a specific template or format I need to use?--otherlleft (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Can someone who doesn't suck at regexen please see if there's anything that can be done about this? Stifle (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Should be fixed now. -- seth (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

broken-links.com
Other than the name suggests the site is a sincere blog about web typography (there seems to be some kind of irony in the name...). --Bernd-vdb (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources. What is the context here? I can't find it on the blacklists either. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I tried to set a link to http://www.broken-links.com/2008/03/18/safari-31-introduces-web-fonts-for-all/ - and get a message "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://www.broken-links..." - try it out (had to shorten the example, otherwise WP wouldn't save the text). Whether it is a reliable source is not the question, only if it should be blacklisted. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I can't find that on our spam blacklists. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * is blocked, so "broken-links.com" is matched. You can use the tool to find regexp entries. -- seth (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, ✅. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

uofa.edu
Hi, I am not sure why our university website url is blocked but could somoene please take it off the black list? University of Atlanta (uofa.edu) is an online unversity catering to global student population. It offers wide array of online degree programs and would serve as an excellent resource for the greater online community looking for accredited online institution. Thank you 12.22.184.3 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amithani (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌. Whitelisting might be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
 * has details on why this was blacklisted. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. So who is that established editor. Please give me some details? As I said, we're an accredited online university, not spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.184.3 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Twigly jamba (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * An established editor is anyone who has been on Wikipedia for a month or two and has edited a reasonable variety of pages. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm interested in how the blacklist works, and I'm an established editor. I looked at the evidence pointed to by Stifle and found it opaque. Looking around, I found that [] and contribs for that account show a single addition of a link in Search engine optimization to seoexpertpakistan.com. There may also have been edits to deleted articles. It looks like an administrator (A.B.) decided that a whole pile of presumed "clients" of SEOexpertpakistan.com were spammers, or that spamming was being done on their behalf. This same admin then added the clients to the blacklist. Someone would normally take steps to remove spam before blacklisting. It could be that most of the deleted links were in deleted articles. However, A.B. warned the editor (who had registered the day before); that editor was not blocked. I don't see a cause sufficient for blacklisting alleged in the report linked above. But perhaps I don't know how to use the report, or perhaps I'd have to be an admin to see the hundreds of deleted articles.... or what? I'm a little troubled by this, documentation for "ordinary editors" seems a tad thin. However, given that UOFA is indeed an accredited school, see, and in the absence of specific evidence, I would ask for delisting of the domain. But I'll wait for an answer here. --Abd (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm, I would suggest to redirect this to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist for a delisting request. I think this has been added as a related domain for which abuse was expected.  Delisting there should be quick.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:21, 6 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I have removed it, there are deleted contributions for some of the other domains, which are clearly spammy. I hope this resolves the problem.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 20:27, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Beetstra. I'm concerned that there may be other improper listings; I'm concerned about massive listing of domains based on some presumed "relation." What was the relation? (I don't find it easy to read the evidence, where would I look?) All I found was an indication that the same service provider was being used, as I recall. Anyway, if I'm correct, this whitelist request is resolved, not by whitelisting, but by delisting. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 13:31, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I originally spent several hours investigating this cluster of spam. In response to Abd's questions and concerns:
 * There were multiple accounts involved; see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1
 * You are correct in noticing this was initiated by one spammed link on the Search engine optimization page. That page serves as a sort of honeypot for spammers; sooner or later, many of them can't resist advertising their own businesses. I look to see if they've spammed other stuff using other accounts.
 * The spammer is in several businesses, one of them search engine optimization. His web site advertises his SEO services which in his case has included spamming Wikipedia with links and promotional articles in spite of requests to stop.
 * The "related domains" are either domains he owns or clients' domains he was spamming. The much spammed National High School Atlanta, Iverson Business School and the University of Atlanta (formerly the troubled "Barrington University") are all operated out of the same office on Peachtree Industrial Blvd. (Campus satellite photo).
 * As for the current University of Atlanta, it is accredited by Distance Education and Training Council however it lacks the regional accreditation that is the foundation of U.S. higher education standards; see Educational accreditation for description of the convoluted U.S. system. In a nutshell, 99% of the U.S.' 1000s of colleges and universities are regionally accredited while the University of Atlanta is not; most regionally accredited institutions would hesitate to recognize their degrees or accept their transfer students. This institution is probably notable, but just barely. (There was an unrelated state university for African-American students in the days of segregation decades ago).
 * I left the link in place on the University of Atlanta page since it was needed for that article.
 * I declined to to blacklist domains belonging to non-spam clients. If you look over the spammer's site, you'll see they also design web-sites, etc., so I didn't want to cause collateral damage. Those domains not blacklisted are listed with "live" links at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1 (i.e., they still include their "http").
 * I listed those additional, unblacklisted domains on the WT:WPSPAM page since domains listed there automatically get watched for by our bots. Listing live links there also means any future editor looking for these domains using Special:LinkSearch will find the full record in our archives.
 * I didn't bother blocking the offending spammer because:
 * He'd just get another account if he had more domains to add.
 * If he keeps his old account and spams again, it's easier for me to watch out for more warnings. If he moves to a new account, then we've lost him.
 * I'm pretty comfortable with the decisions I made on this batch of domains, especially after double-checking things again today. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:37, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for explaining your work, A. B., I wasn't expecting this much response, and I appreciate the time you took to write it. However, I'll moving this section to Approved requests since uofa.edu was actually delisted as a result of the discussion here, I think that's close enough to Approved to warrant it, don't you? --Abd (talk) 03:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I defer to community consensus, but having done further research today, I'd say it should be kept on the list. Also, take a look at the requesting editor's contributions, the article itself and name on the domain registration. I question whether we even want this article; the only shred of notability comes from its controversy when it was known as Barrington University. If you click on all the links I added previously about the school (especially the campus photo), I think you'll get the flavor of the place. Is the president himself writing the article? If so, it can't be a very big outfit. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:32, 17 February 2009 (UTC)


 * As for the time involved in double-checking and responding:
 * It's important that we get this right. Given a choice, I'd rather have a good outcome than look good personally.
 * Regular editors such as yourself need to be confident that we're not running off half-cocked around here.


 * Our spam mitigation efforts need to operate as unobtrusively as possible in the background as far as regular editors are concerned.


 * As for transparency, what can I say? Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive May 1 does provide a fully transparent record -- an undecypherably transparent record for many readers! If you need help decoding any of it, let me know. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:42, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) I very much appreciate the comments and help of A. B. The status quo is that the link is off the list, but anyone can request listing again on the blacklist page. I am utterly and totally detached about whether uofa.org is on the blacklist or not, but am only asserting that blacklisting shouldn't be maintained in the presence of reasonable objection and lack of necessity. What's been happening, instead, is that blacklisting is maintained, at least sometimes, even with some level of reasonable objection, based on evidence that the original blacklisting was proper. But that's actually moot, unless the original evidence indicates particular likelihood of continued spamming. In the case of lyrikline.org, blacklisted on meta based on quantity of links, repeated requests for delisting met with the same repetition of link addition evidence, plus additional evidence added as rationalization ("copyright violation"). On de, the 'pedia closest to lyrikline.org, which was native German originally, when the whitelist request came up, fears were expressed of continued linkspamming. In response, an editor offered to monitor for linkspam. According to User:Lustiger seth, no linkspamming occurred even though the entire site was whitelisted to get around meta. We need to do more of that (voluntary monitoring). Opening up the delisting and whitelisting process to non-admin editors would help. (Yes, it's already open, in theory, but not practical for most editors, and there is no Project encouragement of non-blacklister participation, WP:WikiProject Spam, with its battleship image, is all about detecting and demolishing spam. Not protecting content. We need both. We need the blacklist process to be more efficient and not be distracted by complaints based on content issues, site owners understandably upset at being blacklisted when they did nothing, etc. The participation of blacklist administrators like yourself in my investigations on this issue has been a huge asset, and I thank you for it. This is not about identifying the bad guys and giving them the boot. I'm assuming no bad guys. Just people who have differing opinions about what's best for the project. I believe this report is closed, it's sitting in the Approved section, I think we are more than done here. I encourage any continued comment on the overall process issues at User talk:Abd/Blacklist or elsewhere as appropriate. --Abd (talk) 20:57, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

kerrang
moved. original thread #lyrikline.org. -- seth (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

hi. i've been having a similar problem with my own whitelisting request (losethegame.com/kerrang.mp3 above). the admins here seem to be misinterpreting wp:copyright. it says to avoid linking to "known" copyvios. neither the site mentioned here nor the one i want to link to have any evidence of violating copyright, so i cannot see how this can be a good reason to deny whitelisting. the site was blacklisted for some minor spam that took place in 2007 but now that there is a legitimate use. exactly the same as in this request. maybe an uninvolved admin who has some experience dealing with copyvio concerns could take a look and comment? Jessi1989 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You were told to use the WP:OTRS project to obtain proof from Kerrang! that they've released the copyright. There is no misinterpretation here. OhNo itsJamie Talk 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * yes, and as i replied in the whitelisting request, i contacted the user responsible for copyrights at otrs asking how to do this and he basically told me that copyvios by other sites are not of concern to either OTRS or black/whitelisting. hence my concern that admins here are misinterpreting wp:copyrights. where does it say anything along the lines of sites not being whitelisted unless otrs proves they have copyright permission for all their content? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * hi jamie, you are very quick at reverting my edits elsewhere on wikipedia, so why so slow to respond here? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * OTRS is commonly used for copyright permissions. It may make more sense to make the request for permission to upload the audio file to Commons. That said, we should not link to an audio broadcast without concrete proof that the copyright has been released.  Period. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * this is exactly what i mean about you misinterpreting things. where does it say anywhere on that page you linked to anything at all about not being able to link to sources "without concrete proof that the copyright has been released". nowhere. period. do you really think this kind of blatant deception is appropriate for an admin? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
 * This has been ✅ by Beetstra. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html
Not really certain why this was blacklisted to begin with, but I've been using the site as a secondary reference mainly for information on list of film formats, since it actually includes pictures of some of the more obscure formats. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
 * User pages are not generally considered a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 00:06, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * As I've said, mainly as a secondary resource. However, this page is exceptional in that it has physical scans of obscure formats, several of which don't seem to be documented anywhere else. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Does "not being a reliable source" imply being blacklisted in WP? Looks like a typical Necessary_and_sufficient_condition misunderstanding (and -conception) to me. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 13:03, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * You misunderstand, I think. The site is rightly blacklisted due to abuse, but we may whitelist individual links if they are of particular merit.  In this case that has not been established. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * What abuse has been evidenced? I also don't understand the concept that because it may have been inappropriately added to pages in the past that this automatically disqualifies good-faith use of the site. The RS issue may have merit, but this is not the forum for it. I am an experienced editor asking that a site be whitelisted so as to facilitate my editing work, and I have no COI. Is that not the entire point of this forum? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to a lack of an explanation of how this link would benefit Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)
 * this page is exceptional in that it has physical scans of obscure formats Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

Relisting since no one seemed willing to address my responses. To return to the question - the site has physical scans of rare and obscure film formats that are poorly documented otherwise, particularly with regard to their perforation specifications. In the case of some formats, there are no comparable sources, and in particular, many of these formats have no other known graphics that I've been able to find in my research (which has been ongoing for several years now). I do not know why this site was blacklisted before, but I don't see how that is relevant to my current usage, which is as a matter of referencing. I'm trying to finish the references on the entries within list of film formats in preparation for an FLC bid. Assistance by whitelisting at least this particular page would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if any further information will be required. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)


 * ✅ -- thanks for the explanation. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:06, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

www.fibre2fashion.com
I'm interested in an interview published in this site which I would like to use in Ritu Beri. In fact the link to this interview was available in the article until 4 May 2008, when it was removed accidentally. The link is www.fibre2fashion.com/face2face/ritu-beri-design/ritu-beri-fashion-designer.asp Jay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks! Jay (talk) 07:54, 19 January 2009 (UTC)

moneyweek.com
The largest financial magazine in the UK. Please see comments on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist

(articles I've edited where the links are valid)
 * Subpages under User:Daytona2
 * Merryn Somerset Webb
 * Anthony Bolton

(other articles where the link is valid - I don't have time to examine all 61 articles with MoneyWeek links)
 * MoneyWeek
 * Stephen A. Jarislowsky
 * Exchange-traded fund

For the record I have no connection with Agora or any subsidiaries such as MoneyWeek other than respect for some of their writers. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk ·  Contribs) 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is, however, no dispute that Agora were spamming. So: please list links you would like whitelisted.  We do not whitelist entire domains, that is not how it works. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Per Daytona2's request here;
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/imaginary-profits-dry-up-14251.aspx
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/file/229/merryn-somerset-webb-.html
 * http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19277/how-anthony-bolton-finds-winners.html
 * Three Urls, ✅. De-listing the entire domain is, at this time.--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

Expekt.com
expekt.com/pagecontent/pagecontent.jsp?pageid=10508 - Tried to use the link to reference Glenn Strömberg's nickname "The Marathon Man" and haven't been able to find a different source to cite. (First time for me to request a thing like this, hope this follows the procedure) &mdash; CHANDLER#10 &mdash; 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ✅ Stifle (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks &mdash; CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 15:47, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. I still can't post the link and it directs me to the Spam filter notice &mdash; CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 15:54, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * should be fixed now. -- seth (talk) 16:13, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, it worked now, thanks &mdash; CHAN  DLER #10 &mdash; 16:18, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org
The article Martin Fleischmann would use these linkgs on the references section so those papers can be verified: --Enric Naval (talk) 15:39, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * http://lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmansearchingf.pdf Holds the only online copy of this presentation by Fleischmann.
 * http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmanbackground.pdf Ídem. (it may be different from the final copy published at the official conference proceedings, but it can be useful to see what it contained)
 * Enric has withdrawn his request for the second link, but I continue to request it unless a link is provided where our readers can read it. --Abd (talk) 19:48, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This report suggests that the site was blacklisted (only a week or two ago) as a very unreliable source and host of copyvios. Can you clarify why the reasons for blacklisting the site do not apply to these links? Stifle (talk) 09:27, 21 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Those two papers are proceedings from International Conferences on Cold Fusion (ICCF), concretely the 9th and 10th conferences. Jed Rothwell (the maintainer of this website) helped to interpret most of the 11th conference papers, as acknowledged by its chairman on the foreword of its official proceedings . So, being such a trusted person on those conferences, I don't see a reason to think that papers from those proceedings have been manipulated by him or that he doesn't have permission from the conference organizers. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:42, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There is no credible allegation that the specific pages cited are "unreliable." There is a claim that a specific reference, to a U.S. government report, contained an editorial comment added by the site manager (and clearly identified as such); however, whether legitimate or not, this isn't the case with the two links above. The articles were written by Fleischmann, giving his history of the cold fusion affair, hence they are quite useful to any reader (as would be any autobiographical work). There is no dispute over using the papers themselves as references; the only question is if copies of the papers, hosted under a credible claim of permission from the author and the publisher, can be linked for the convenience of readers.
 * As to copyright violations, there is, again, no credible evidence of copyright violation, only an assumption that if lenr-canr.org hosts so many papers published elsewhere, they must involve copyright violation. The webmaster has answered copyright violation charges many times, stating that he has three times as many papers as he can host, because he doesn't have permission for the rest. I asked admin User:DGG, who is a professional librarian, to review lenr-canr.org and comment. He did at . There was also discussion of this on my delist request here. Substantial opinion has been that, well, you can get individual pages you need whitelisted, so therefore there is no big deal with blacklisting.
 * Yes, the blacklisting on meta was recent. JzG went to meta after his unilateral blacklisting here was noticed and questioned. He removed the two references above, based on his own editorial judgment of unreliability, then blacklisted lenr-canr.org, all on December 18, making his edits impossible to revert. There was no edit warring over them, no repetitious insertion of links, and they were stable; in fact, one of the links was originally inserted by a critic of the webmaster of lenr-canr.org. --Abd (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2009 (UTC)


 * No argument has appeared here that these specific usages of pages from lenr-canr.org should not be whitelisted. The request is not coming from an alleged linkspammer. No evidence of specific copyright violation has been asserted. The links requested existed in the article and were stable -- in a controversial field -- when they were removed by JzG and blacklisted by him, without discussion. The reliability of lenr-canr.org is not an issue, lenr-canr.org is not asserted as a source (but only as a repository of permitted free-access copies, reasonably considered accurate); rather, reliability would apply to the publishers and authors of the papers, and is a matter for specific editorial judgment among the editors of the article. Please approve or deny the whitelist request, an unreasonable time has passed without action, so that the links can be used, or further steps in dispute resolution may be considered if the response is negative but without clear reason. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 27 January 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of linkspamming, there is a history of spamming the cold fusion talk page with this address- take a look at this archive- "lenr-canr.org" occurs 85 times on that page, 82 of which were added by edits made by the operator of the site, Jed Rothwell. Some of the edits were topical, but considering the volume of repetition this appears to me to be textbook linkspam. --Noren (talk) 06:35, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Noren's evidence above is the frequent addition of the domain name for Jed Rothwell to his signature. It's basically his title ("librarian, lenr-canr.org"). None of those were "links." They aren't affected by the blacklisting. The posts aren't spam, though I certainly haven't looked at all of them. Rothwell is the operator of what is arguably the best on-line bibliography and library of documents on Cold fusion and related topics. It is not only for documents promoting "cold fusion." It seems to be complete, and he's asked for notice of any incompleteness. He claims permission from authors and publishers to host what he hosts, and given that he is number one in google hits, typically, that there is no apparent copyright violation action against him is prima facie evidence that he does, in fact, have permissions. He's a published and recognized author in the field. He doesn't edit the Cold fusion article, and that is, in fact, precisely what WP:COI would suggest, he only posts to Talk. He's opinionated and sometimes uncivil, as experts too often are. Now, what does this have to do with this whitelist request? Whitelists are a way to deal with a specific usable page in the presence of blacklisting. And those examples are far from "textbook" linkspam. Perhaps Noren should read WikiProject Spam. There is a list of twenty characteristics. Only a few even arguably apply, and even those are shaky. --Abd (talk) 13:48, 28 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Abd should read (or watch) the Spam (Monty Python) article/sketch. Jed is much like the people in the sketch, except instead of "Spam" he chants his mantra of "lenr-canr.org" incessantly.  Such shameless, incessant self-promotion is disruptive and unpleasant.--Noren (talk) 04:05, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Perhaps Noren should confine himself to what's relevant here. What Jed does or does not chant is irrelevant here, so I'm not going to debate it here, beyond what's been said above. What I'd like to see here is a decision by a neutral administrator. Claims are on the blacklist talk pages that it's simple to get whitelisting. Apparently not. --Abd (talk) 19:42, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Scratch the second link, the paper is already published on a book.

P.D.: The site owner claims to have blanket permission to publish the proceedings of several of the Cold Fusion Conferences. We already know that he acted as editor for at least one of those conferences, and he makes that claim on a mailing list that is read by cold fusion proponents. So, if that claim was false, then he would have received inmediate replies from the conference organizators, etc., since cold fusion is a small walled garden and stuff appearing on that list must make it to every little corner of that garden. Had he been lying, I think that someone would have complained already.... --Enric Naval (talk) 15:05, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As to "published in a book," there have always been two issues here: the paper itself, and an easily accessible copy. Lenr-canr.org is not generally asserted as a reliable source, though there may be a few examples where, for some uses, it would be. However, that something is published as a book doesn't make it reasonably accessible. The issue is serving our readers. If there is a copy hosted with permission, that can be easily accessed by readers, not suspected of being altered, can we link to it? (If the published copy is easily available, then, yes, that whitelist request can be withdrawn, but, until then, I'm not withdrawing it. Enric did not make that clear.) --Abd (talk) 19:47, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This again comes back to 'verifyable' versus verified. The original link makes the data verifyable, there is no need to actually link to the data ("xx wrote in his book yy on page 12" is just the same as including an external link to that), or that the data is easily accessible.  I am inclined to decline this, seen previous abuse of this link.  If this is the only copy (as it is e.g. originaly published by lenr-carn.org) of that document available, then whitelisting can be considered.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:10, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The first link is the only copy of that document (no proceedings of the 9th conference were published except online at lenr-canr.org), the second one isn't. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is there a paper version? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:18, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Whatever, I have whitelisted the first link for use on Martin Fleischmann.   --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:22, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * THank you very much :) --Enric Naval (talk) 23:43, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * After all this, Enric restored the link to the article (where it had been stable until JzG removed it before blacklisting lenr-canr.org). JzG reverted it, giving the argument (not seeing any independent evidence of the significance of that paper). While I've reverted him, I just thought you might like to know that one can go to all this trouble to get a whitelisting, and still meet entrenched opposition from the blacklisting admin, who apparently never saw a reference that might give the cold fusion researcher's view of history or science that he considered usable. Fleischmann is notable, the paper is his personal and published description of the history of a very famous affair. At most, facts from it, if controversial, would require attribution. Anyway, thanks again for the whitelisting, Beetstra. --Abd (talk) 16:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Correct. Do yuo have any external independent references that identify this as a significant part of Fleischmann's work? The major proponents of this kind of content have been POV-pushers; two of the most vociferous are now topic-banned. This is a presentation at a finrge conference, not a peer-reviewed publication ina  respectable journal, so we need a source to show that it is significant.  Guy (Help!) 18:52, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

(unindent) JzG's comments in this area have often been like this, unfortunately. Arguments are multiplied, but they are off the point.
 * No claim has been made that the paper is a "significant part of Fleischmann's work," nor is such a claim necessary for usage in this case. The paper isn't used as an example of his work. Were this self-published, even, it would still be usable, as the opinion, memory, or claim of a notable individual, Martin Fleischmann, verifiable as such, on a notable topic, the history of his investigations into a notable topic, Cold fusion, which is also what he's best known for. If the link isn't appropriate, get consensus for taking it out, don't interfere with whitelisting when you are the one who, on your own initiative and without consultation, blacklisted it, see User:Abd/JzG.
 * "Fringe" isn't relevant, and Fleischmann is significant. The whole topic is allegedly "fringe." Don't want "fringe," AfD Cold fusion and Martin Fleischmann. And these are the kinds of decisions which should be made by editorial consensus, not by administrative fiat.
 * Two "proponents" have indeed been "topic-banned," one, Pcarbonn by ArbComm, but the other, JedRothwell by JzG himself, and the latter hasn't (yet) been challenged because it's probably moot, the editor is uncivil and doesn't care at all about being banned. I don't question something formally if I think that it will be useless, even if I think the action was very wrong.
 * The "proponents" are irrelevant. Who added the link? Hint: it was not one of them, as I recall. I think this may need to be on my case page, User:Abd/Blacklist/lenr-canr.org.
 * Now, as to useless discussion, WTF is this discussion doing being restarted by JzG so much later? This, quite simply, is not the place to argue article content issues, beyond immediate discussion for the purpose of whitelisting, and that matter was decided. --Abd (talk) 20:38, 16 February 2009 (UTC)

americanhistory.suite101.com (or at least americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/oscar_wildes_foray_into_civil_rights )
I am not sure why this is blocked because it is an educational article about Oscar Wilde americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/oscar_wildes_foray_into_civil_rights) and not at all shocking. I notice another suite101.com request on here.  I do not know if the whole americanhistory needs to be ublocked but this one story would be nice, thanks. Comradepuma (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) CP
 * Suite101.com is blocked due to spamming; as it is a free magazine-hosting site, it is not generally a reliable source. Can you explain what you want to do with this URL and, if you are citing it, how it is a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

urbandub.freeforums.org
please remove this link to black listed. I'm going to add this link to the article about Urbandub here on Wikipedia. The site is a forum for Urbandub and supporters of the band. Thanks.
 * ❌; this may be considered for whitelisting on the application of an established editor, ideally with an explanation of how Wikipedia (and not the website) would benefit from the addition. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

blogs.squidoo.com and squidoo.com
I'm rewriting the Squidoo page, and Squidoo's companion blog "Squidblog" provides valuable information to the page's history section. These are the three sources I want to include:

- blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2005/10/07/squidoo-is-about-communicating-meaning/ This is when the site was announced.

- blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2005/12/08/its-ready/ This is when the site released beta testing details.

- blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2007/03/15/ps-and-the-lucky-lensmaster-was/ This is when the site reached 100,000 pages.

Also, on a similar note, the squidoo.com domain is blacklisted. I want to use this page to source details on Squidoo's charity contributions: squidoo.com/squidoo-charity-giveaway

Thanks. Svernon19 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * ❌. Blogs are not reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

It says on Verifiability "Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Do you check whether this is the case before you say "blog"?

My URL is blocked - why I am not allowed to repair my fault?
On 20 Dec my URL was blocked and all links to it were deleted. I made the fault that I added too many links to my own website. I did not know that that is not allowed. I proposed to delete my links myself but I cannot do it because there are no links anymore, logic. I run a non-commercial, educational website: realgems.org (I cannot write the complete URL because it is blocked). I never wanted to spam Wikipedia: Since JULY 08 I added links to my special pages without problem. No deletion, nothing. Now, on 20th Dec, all links were blocked. Reason: spamming. I wrote to someone from Wikipedia who is (perhaps besides others) responsible for this blockade. Finally he told me that he doesn't know how to help me. Then I wrote to a Wiki admin who added a lot of links to other websites, as I did. These links were not regarded as spam, surely because these sites are not his sites. No problem for me but he suddenly cancelled the talk. Now I don't know how to proceed now. I even offered him to become a Wiki member, re additions to various pages ("projects"). No chance. Another problem is that many of my visitors have added links to my site on various Wiki pages, from America to Asia. Their links were also deleted. I find that not very adequate because a lot of the international public (of Wikipedia) seems to be interested in my website, and I made just the fault to add too many links to my own site. Please help me so that at least their links will be re-installed. Then, as I proposed, I will become a valued Wiki supporter / editor. Is that a fair proposal? I think so.

Kind regards, Redberyl Redberyl (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The URL isn't blocked directly on Wikipedia, it's blacklisted at m:Spam blacklist, which is a central blacklist used by all Mediawiki projects (which Wikipedia is just one of many). The discussion and justification for this is documented at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#realgems.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Barek, thanks for your quick response. But what shall I conclude from your message? What can I do? What can you do so that a well-respected website can be reached also on Wikipedia again? Redberyl (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * As it's not blacklisted here, the only way to remove the blacklist would be to address the issue at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed removals; the only thing that could be done directly at Wikipedia would be to request whitelisting on this specific project at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites_to_unblock). However, I should mention that in both cases, requests by site owners are rarely granted without support from established editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

Dear Barek, I'm very thankful for your supportive messages. O.K. I will try to put my humble request on the Wiki pages you mentioned.

Btw I cannot send an email to your address. They came back as undeliverable.

dzinkuije, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs)
 * m:User:COIBot/XWiki/realgems.org --Hu12 (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2009 (UTC)

I MAY NOT BE IN THE CORRECT PLACE

gogreenecounty.com & gcindiana.info are the same website.

Somehow I have been blocked & have no clue how it happened or why. I suspect someone here in my area with a site like mine has caused me problems.

Please asvise. Bill - Email is on mky website 68.57.239.116 (talk) 18:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

filmtaka.com
My website www.filmtaka.com is now blacklisted, i add some pages of my website in wikipedia, when i add my website link in wikipedia, i got a message that my external link will be deleted by regex rule(s): \bfilmtaka\.com\b (links:filmtaka.com/2009/01/uninvited.html). the page of my website contain the movie trailer. so how can my website violate the terms of wikipedia. please also tell me how can my website URL will include regex rule. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Film17 (talk • contribs) 07:56, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You have been using three different accounts, and have recieved warnings and suggestions on how to handle further on all three of them. The first two accounts did not discuss, rather they continued until they were blocked.  As you kept on creating new accounts and repeating without discussing.  Have you considered reading the policies and guidelines linked in the warnings on either of the three talkpages?  How does linking to this site add to the wikipedia pages it is linked on?  Until then, .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 12:30, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

yes, i make three accounts to add external links, when my first accounts is blocked so i create second account & than third. because i did not read the policies of wikipedia, this is my first time when i edit wikipedia pages, so i think to change username is a best way to handle this situation, but now i read the policies of wikipedia & In future this type of violation did not happen & if any circumstances will be come, im using talk page & discuss the situation. --Film17 (talk) 15:58, 26 January 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Film17 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

lyrikline.org
www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=59&L=1&author=mk01&cHash=4159481764 needed for article Michael Krüger (writer) as it's the only examples of his poetry I can find online.MisarxistTM 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I think it was blacklisted for copyright violations. There is no evidence that the site has copyright release to host those poems.  Does the subject not have his own website? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)


 * In fact it was blacklisted due to this, this and this. And might something like this be what you're looking for? MER-C 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Puzzled. I look at the links, and see not one piece of evidence that shows blacklisting is appropriate. Addition of multiple links if useful isn't any kind of abuse at all. In spite of Misarxist's admission of a "small spam campaign," I don't think there was any spam campaign, but an editor who thought these would be useful links, as Misarxist thinks, and who added them, and who actually stopped when challenged, and apologized, but was blocked anyway for independent and totally spurious reasons. --Abd (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Ha! Safe to say then. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm well aware there was a small spam campaign, hence I'm asking for an exemption for one page, which I have justified. Please agf & look at the particular issue, that someone else was spamming isn't relevant. As I said I have looked for other sources & please note also the oxford page contains only 'one' poem, hence not very useful.MisarxistTM 10:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)


 * The site carries no evidence of copyright release, please see Copyrights. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I must be missing something. Copyrights doesn't require the kind of "evidence" that JzG seems to think necessary. Copyvio is not to be assumed by not seeing a statement of license. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry should have checked properly before, they do secure permissions, in much the same way as a print anthology would. See bottom of lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1 "internationally operating network committed to protecting the rights of copyright holders, and does the utmost to insure that rights are secured for all content on the website – poems, translations, audio recordings, and photographs."MisarxistTM 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * So, we have above a link to an Oxford college, but you still want to use the spammed site on the basis that they claim to try really hard not to violate copyright, even while not actually going as far as documenting the release for the specific content? Guy (Help!) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The Oxford site has half a dozen lines from one poem on it, hence not very useful. The blacklisted site states they do obtain releases, and furthermore the site is not some random personal website but is sponsored by any number of gov organisations and was was originaly linked with UNESCO, I noted on another page. The page is clearly relevant & usefull, the fact that it was 'spammed' (thought, I should note, not execesively, it was relevant to all the articles added too) should be neither here nor there. MisarxistTM 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with Guy — WP:EL strongly discourages linking to sites with copyvios. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
 * But nothing above suggests that the site has ever had a copyvio. It was blocked for spam, not for copyvio.  -- Zsero (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zsero. de:lyrikline.org even has its own article, because once it got the grimme online award (which is famous in de). The massive link placing of this website was a problem. But even in de-wiki (there was the biggest spamming of this link) I unblocked the whole domain, after there were a few requests. There was no further spamming since.
 * So I recommend whitelisting of this link despite this request was declined in autumn. -- seth (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)
 * serious spamming. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1.5. Also, There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). Would seem there are probably other alternative sites which don't violate our linking policy?--Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * I think we can safely call this . Stifle (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Mmmm... I'll go to delisting on meta, which is a better solution. The "evidence" of "spamming" was seriously defective. For example, it includes links on de, where the domain is whitelisted. Why was it whitelisted? Well, de is the only wiki where the issue was examined in detail. All the links on de are considered legitimate. They are the same links, generally, as existed and were removed here. The only evidence for linkspamming is that a single user (logged in or as IP) added them. But if they are legitimate, they aren't linkspamming. Complicating this was the fact that the user here was User:Lyriker, and some seem to have assumed COI or involvement with lyrikline.org. Folks, "Lyriker" means "poet." The username only indicates an interest in poetry or poets, and all the links were added to articles on poets. This is the same user as Lyrik on de, who has shown an interest in poetry. Lyrik means "poetry." I have yet to see one of these alleged linkspams that weren't arguably legitimate for the article. There is no specific example of copyright violation alleged, only a principle that if there is no proof of license, we should assume violation, which is not an established guideline at all.
 * By the way, User:Lyriker was blocked here, based on the alleged domain name included in user name. It wasn't true. Any admin could fix that. I'll take it to the blocking admin or to AN if this comment doesn't suffice. --Abd (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Delisting now requested on meta. http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#lyrikline.org. --Abd (talk) 16:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I am sorry Abd, do you assume here that we did not examine the situation in detail? There are 2 IPs who added in total 136 times this link (and hardly any other) to over 10 wikipedia (each).  In addition there were some cross-wiki accounts adding this link.  Please get your facts straight.  Can we please focus on this specific link?  Is it necessery, is there no replacement, and does it not violate copyright.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:30, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. I notice, not "assume," that some discussions of blacklistings and whitelistings don't examine the fundamental issues, but take positions on linkspamming, copyright, fringe advocacy, etc., that do not seem to match general consensus, but only a local one. Beetstra, you added nothing here that I did not already know. There were a large number of links added by, apparently, a single user, mostly from a single IP, but also as User:Lyriker here and User:Lyrik on de. If all or most of these links were inappropriate, then it would be linkspamming, possibly (there would still be guidelines not being followed). I abandoned this discussion, in fact, as noted because it's silly to debate a single link here, when there are easily thirty or more such possible links that are all either appropriate or not. So, unless there is some lower-level resolution on this, I'll be escalating up the ladder of WP:DR. --Abd (talk) 23:50, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Whether or not Lyriker has a conflict of interest or not, he was spamming (use the term pushing if you like that better) the links, we are not a linkfarm, we are an encyclopedia. We don't need to have external links .. etc. etc.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 17:43, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * The links appear to follow WP:EXT. If they are reasonable -- even if editors decide to remove them -- they aren't linkspamming. I can -- and have -- presented clear evidence that these links are quite reasonable, based on the only discussion of them so far that wasn't among antispam warriors, who may develop a rather jaundiced perception. Not one clear incident of abuse has been alleged, only an opinion among antispammers that a large number of links must be linkspam, no further questions need be asked, and that the links aren't needed, which is clearly a content position. Beetstra, you (and certain others) are using your position as an administrator to assert a content position. That's a form of involvement, though I haven't seen specific precedent for that. I wouldn't be surprised to find that most administrators working to remove and prevent spam hold a similar position, but I'm also fairly sure that broader consensus would support links like those to lyrikline.org, and not the way the blacklist is being used. Are we done here? Should we discuss this on our Talk pages or by email? Or should I move up the ladder? Thanks. --Abd (talk) 00:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Massive multiple mediawiki project spamming


 * ar:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * be-x-old:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * bn:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * br:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * bs:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * ca:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * cs:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * cy:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * da:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * de:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * el:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * en:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * eo:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * es:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * et:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * eu:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * fa:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * fi:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * fr:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * ga:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * gl:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * he:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * hr:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * hu:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * is:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * it:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * ka:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * ku:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * la:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * lb:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * lv:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * mk:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * nds:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * nl:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * no:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * oc:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * pl:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70


 * pt:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * ro:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * ru:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * sh:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * simple:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * sk:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * sl:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * sr:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * sv:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * tr:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * uk:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * zh-min-nan:Special:Contributions/62.96.74.70
 * de:Special:Contributions/Lyrik
 * ja:Special:Contributions/Lyrik
 * ar:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * ca:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * da:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * eo:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * es:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * fi:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * fr:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * gl:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * he:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * it:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * ku:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * la:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * lb:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * nl:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * no:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * pl:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * pt:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * ro:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * ru:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * sk:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * sv:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * tr:Special:Contributions/78.52.192.162
 * de:Special:Contributions/70.17.129.180


 * Discussion on de.Wikipedia clearly shows that this user admits to also being IP 62.96.74.70, who hadn't logged in. " (<- this is the way, my username on Wikipedia, I only had me earlier seemingly not logged in) " (Google translated link) --Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion on de.Wikipedia clearly shows that this user admits to also being IP 62.96.74.70, who hadn't logged in. " (<- this is the way, my username on Wikipedia, I only had me earlier seemingly not logged in) " (Google translated link) --Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion on de.Wikipedia clearly shows that this user admits to also being IP 62.96.74.70, who hadn't logged in. " (<- this is the way, my username on Wikipedia, I only had me earlier seemingly not logged in) " (Google translated link) --Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion on de.Wikipedia clearly shows that this user admits to also being IP 62.96.74.70, who hadn't logged in. " (<- this is the way, my username on Wikipedia, I only had me earlier seemingly not logged in) " (Google translated link) --Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Discussion on de.Wikipedia clearly shows that this user admits to also being IP 62.96.74.70, who hadn't logged in. " (<- this is the way, my username on Wikipedia, I only had me earlier seemingly not logged in) " (Google translated link) --Hu12 (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is based upon collaborative, good faith editing, and consensus. When a stance passes the point of reasonableness, despite clear evidence of abuse and multiple statements of policy, and despite multiple reasoned opinions and comments provided by experienced, independent editors and administrators (including on Meta), then continuing that stance in pursuit of a certain point is no longer reasonable or policy-compliant, and may interperated as a disruptive pattern, being used to make or illustrate a point if let to continue. Closing this as --Hu12 (talk) 18:46, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

tinyurl.com
The article is "Pitmilly" that I am trying to upload to Inver471ness sandbox. However, I have ben unable to save the article because of this blacklisting. I believe that this site should be whitelisted because it is a very useful method of condensing long URLs to shorter, more manageable ones. I use it all the time outside Wikipedia and have found it very useful. While I want to use it in my article, I believe that others in Wikipedia would also find it very useful.Inver471ness (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * -- while it is indeed handy, it can also be used to bypass spam blacklisting. -- Versa geek  01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Agree. Just cite the target URL directly. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

hitlerbunker.com
Dear Administrators,

my website "www.hitlerbunker.com" has been blocked by the anti-spam filter end put in your blacklist. This site is present since few years in Wikipedia and I can assure that its beaviour has been always correct and respecful of your rules.

I think that the putting it in the blacklist has been given by a banal error made in the digit of it. I explain the fact: the website refers to my book "Fuehrerbunker-Discovered its Mysteries". At the aim to digit the "ue" I went at the search of the German "u" with the (..) over the "u" (umlaut); having not found it I preferred to do "copy/past" from another url present in the same page.

All is here: I did not think that such "copy/past" operation could be interpreted as a violation to the Wikipedia regulation.

For this reason and seen the banality of the violation I ask you that my website "www.hitlerbunker.com" be whitelisted (unblocked).

Thanks for your indulgence.

GUIDO Pietro

for e-mail address and phone number see history

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Musaca (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)


 * As you can see here there was a lot of spamming done with this link. The users who added the link did not use the talk pages but waged edit wars. The blacklist seemed to be the only way to stop them.
 * Your domain is not helpful in the sense of WP:EL (or de:WP:WEB and so on). There is no information on the subject "Fuehrerbunker". It seems to exist only to sell a book, see WP:EL #5. So I don't see why it should be whitelisted. -- seth (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ per Seth. Delisting may be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com/
I was trying to cite an edit to Grey's Anatomy that I was making, but it turns out that this url (http://www..com/article/508691/talking_to_greys_anatomy_writer_shonda.html?page=2 replace with associatedcontent) is getting blacklisted. This site appears to be an innocent news website, why it is blacklisted I do not understand. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Associatedcontent.com is not generally a reliable source, please see . Unless there's something special about this particular article which you can add, this is . Stifle (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

brugo.be
Dear Administrators,

For some unknown reason links to this website have been removed over and over again. This website contains valuable information regarding the study of Joseki (opening strategies of an asian boardgame). The mentioned website is (relatively new but) one of the biggest and highest quality pages available on the internet regarding this topic.

Further more it has over 10,000 visitors. Of which 30% are returning visitors. These are clearly not the characteristics of spam. It can only be a mistake or personal rage that this website ended up in the blacklist. It was only mentioned on 3 pages. There surely were some other hyperlinks on these pages that were far less related than this website which is entirely devoted to the subject.

On top of that the website is a free non-commercial one. Clearly not spam. I hope this can be resolved quickly.

You can also email me at webmaster at brugo dot be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.220.2 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We rarely whitelist (or unblacklist) at the request of the site owner. Self-published works are rarely considered to be reliable sources, and as such, Wikipedia has no use for the link. OhNo itsJamie  Talk 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.183.12 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Well I can understand your reasoning from a certain point of view. On the other hand there's a couple of things totally wrong about this reasoning as well:
 * So, here I am trying very hard to convince you my website is clean. The person who blacklisted it, did it with 1 click not giving any explanations. Why do I have to prove I'm innocent when I'm not even charged for anything.
 * 1) To be honest, I would be a pretty bad webmaster if I would NOT respond to this terrible situation. Getting a website to be "whitelisted" is so hard that you can't honestly expect one of my daily visitors to come here and clear this mess for me, can you? No kidding, I've been looking for more than a week just to find THIS page! It's a maze.
 * 2) I have a big audiance in a small world. There's probably not much more than 10,000 players in europe who play this game. This isn't really like you banned www.ebay.com.

Honestly, let's get to the point. What will convince you to whitelist my website ?
 * A certain highplaced person should post a message here? Like for instance, board of directors of a national federation? - Can be arranged in no time
 * Or do you just want huge quantities of visitors to put messages here? - Shouldn't be a problem
 * Anything you want, just name it and let's get this thing over with please.

Some references: Maybe this can convince you. My website is mentioned indirectly by one of the other mentioned webpages. It's mentioned on the main Joseki page (same page, a more specific wiki) of the biggest Go wiki site. And on top that exact page is mentioned here on wikipedia as well. If you trust them, and they trust me... then wouldn't it make sense you trust me as well?
 * http://senseis.xmp.net/?Joseki <-- a page still mentioned here on wikipedia and links to the next link.
 * http://senseis.xmp.net/?Brugo <-- my website

Another prove. My website is mentioned on the following Go Federation websites:
 * www.usgo.org/resources/internet.html : the american go association
 * http://www.britgo.org/junior/index.html : the brittish go association
 * http://www.suomigo.net/wiki/GoVerkossa : another federation (and also wiki)

Thank you in advance and thank you for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.220.2 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. Nothing here explains how the link would be useful to Wikipedia, rather than to your site. Whitelisting of a specific page from the site may be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Of course it would be useful for my website. I received about half of my visitors via wikipedia. And most of them are recurring visitors. But that is mainly because I have a lot of information which is not available on wikipedia. Such as a couple of 1000 diagrams of sequences, which in essence each deserve a page on wikipedia. That's why it is useful to Wikipedia. You know what really starts to bother me is, there are 2 other links on that page, and my website has like 100 times more information than those sites. Why isn't mine referenced, but are those ? I have MORE content and BETTER quality. What's the problem? You can't say my page is useless to wikipedia. - Is finally something going to happen here? I still haven't heard a single reason why my site got removed. If my site is removed then at least I demand all other references are removed as well, since they are worse and offer less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.183.12 (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 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. If such an editor asks to use your sites links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered at that time. Per OhNoitsJamie and Stifle this is closed as.

What is a high-volume? Will 50 messages of 50 different editors be enough? I propose we let them post their messages here. Agreed?

Petition: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.213.21 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) Bram Vdb - KGS 1 dan.
 * 2) Joke R - KGS 4 kyu. (brugo offers so much information that other sites dont, it deserves to be a reliable source of information if not already)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.223.4 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)
 * It does not matter how many different unregistered editors post here. If one person with a Wikipedia account who has edited for a reasonable amount of time and made a reasonable number of edits requests the whitelisting for a reasonable reason, then it will be considered. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm an established editor, and I support un-blacklisting the brugo.be domain. There are a few articles that would benefit from having brugo.be in the external links section (Specifically Joseki and the articles in its See Also section). I see that brugo.be is on the global blacklist, which should only be for widespread, unmanageable spam. I don't think that is applicable in this case. HermanHiddema (talk) 08:53, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The site in question is valuable source for information on Joseki. There are few competitors and Brugo.Be has a far superior quality and unique features. Any visitor to wikipages concerning Joseki should not be withheld from this precious resource. Denying brugo.be to them is an act of censorship and hampers the free spreading of information. In the discussion above I have found no good reason to ban brugo.be even though the author has provided several arguments for whitelisting brugo.be. I feel that brugo.be has become the victim of arbitrariness, which is not as much of a problem to brugo.be itself, because there are other ways to find brugo.be, but also to wikipedia visitors that have genuin interest in Joseki. I hope the blacklisting of brugo.be is soon to be regarded as an unfortunate but –temporary– mistake.ThorAvaTahr (talk) 10:35, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am not entirely convinced that any of the major joseki dictionaries deserve to be on the wikipedia joseki page. We can count TurboGo, GoBase, BruGo and EidoGo / Kogos amongst these. (ThorAvaTahr is wrong to say few competitors.) Instead, a page detailing joseki dictionaries might be appropriate. As an external link on the joseki page, I don't think this quite meets the criteria for external link. You can learn a list of joseki from many sources, but none of these websites are really going to allow you to be more informed about what a joseki is in my opinion. Some book like Get Strong at Joseki or 38 basic joseki might be better. Whilst the website owner has been rather militant in adding in his link, I think it is somewhat bizarre to blacklist the site. OhNoItsNotJamie's argument is somewhat uninformed, which is quite typical for him. It is clear he has not compared the joseki dictionary in question to other joseki dictionaries, if he had done so his comment of reliable could not have been made. As such that portion of his opinion can be instantly discarded as baseless. A proper argument should have been presented to brugo's owner in the first instance to explain why linking to a near professonal quality joseki dictionary was not appropriate. This was not done, and as such wikipedia only has itself to blame for the website becoming blacklisted. Unfortunately wikipedia has failed to understand how genuinely confused the website owner was to have his external link removed time and time again with no reasonable explanation. The response from ohnoitsnotjamie is a typical one and inherent in the way these matters seem to be handled. While I am not convinced BruGo has a place in the encyclopedia, I do think the owner deserves a proper explanation as to why, not some faux diatribe filled with stock links to policy. Can we not to better than this?--ZincBelief (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * This link has been pushed by multiple IPs (6 different, 4 of them in a close range) to multiple wikis (en, ja, fr). They could have seen that it was removed over and over again, which might have given the hint that editors did not want the page included.  Discussion would have been the way forward, not pushing.  Please discuss this with a established editors on talkpages where this link is of interest, or with wikiprojects which are involved in those pages.  If these established editors see the use of the link, it can be whitelisted and added by those editors.  That other links are there is not a reason for inclusion, notability is (do we have BruGo as an article, the redlink suggests 'no'?  Why?).  Until such time .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:57, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Dirk Beetstra, I think only one editor removed the links. I may have missed it, but I have not seen a clear explanation to the website owner as to why his link was removed. As I have seen from the page histories, this absence of explanation is exactly why he is constantly readding the link. It would be more appropriate to first discuss with him why his link is not merited, rather than blacklisting him first and then asking him to discuss. Would you not agree?--ZincBelief (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but at the reason given above for the decline is not valid. The removals of this link from those articles were never by the relevant editors of those articles, all the removals that I can find were based on COIBot/XWiki blacklisting, __not__ on the opinion of knowledgeable editors that the links were not relevant. But more importantly: brugo.be is on the global blacklist, which is meant for widespread, unmanageable spam. Even if discussion among established editors finds that brugo.be is spam, it is neither "widespread" nor "unmanageable" (ie, the relevant editors should be quite capable to handle this themselves, without the help of a bot or blacklist). HermanHiddema (talk) 12:19, 15 January 2009 (UTC)



Inclusion of information is based on notability, we don't need to link to external sites if the internal page is not there, external sites get linked from their own respective articles. The rest is convenience, governed by External links/not a linkfarm/not an internet directory. I could not find BruGo or Brugo, suggesting that this subject is not notable enough. However, the link was added to several pages on several wikis (by IPs only, 6, of which 4 close together), suggesting that this is more for promotional reasons than for enriching the wikipedia. Enriching is adding contents, not only a mention of the link which does not deserve an own link. FYI, it was added three times here by 3 different IPs to Joseki, in all three cases to the top of the list (is this really such an important link that it merits that place in the list?), that means that it was removed at least twice by other editors from that same place. Similar goes for Taisha joseki and Avalanche joseki; see the COIBot report linked in the LinkSummary template above).

Widespread, unmanageable spam, as I said, I see 6 different IPs adding it to 3 different wikis. We can't block all the IPs cross-wiki, and the IP is changing anyway, that is very well within merits of blacklisting, especially since it was on this wiki already removed twice, again,. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I see I missed an argument "this absence of explanation is exactly why he is constantly readding the link. It would be more appropriate to first discuss with him why his link is not merited, rather than blacklisting him first and then asking him to discuss. " .. The IP is changing, how would you discuss with that editor. Discussion is not the task of the editors removing (they can try, yes), if things get removed over and over, it is a task of the editor who adds to think. As an IP editor he does get the Captcha when adding external links and editing suggesting him that, etc. I am sorry, as notifying that editor from our side is impossible (changing IP, different wikis), the only way to get this editor to discuss is to make the link-additions impossible. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * "the only way to get this editor to discuss is to make the link-additions impossible" That sir is an outrageous suggestion. Such an attitude does not belong on wikipedia. --ZincBelief (talk) 15:16, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Oh, I had a further look, the editor (owner) adding these links does try to discuss here and there, that is, is using quite strong language against the people who remove the link, not waiting for any form of answer (well, they don't give it as the language was harassing enough). --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:28, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The link was removed from Joseki by User:Dferg (contribs) and User:Erwin (contribs), in both cases with editing summary "Removing external link: *.brugo.be -- per m:User:COIBot/XWiki/brugo.be". From their contribs, both seem to be users that do this regularly. Neither of them has made this removal because they had made a judgment on the appropriateness of the link for the article. I am not denying that the addition of this link violated COI, but both the number of times it was added and the number of articles it was added to is relatively small. Does the addition to less than 10 articles really constitute "widespread"? And do three additions to an article (Joseki), with days between them (11 oct, 6 jan, 10 jan) really make it "unmanageable"? Further, I fail to see how notability is relevant to blacklisting. I do not assume that it is wikipedia policy to blacklist domains because they are not notable? Or that notable domains can never be blacklisted? Notability is relevant to whether or not this link should be in the Joseki article, which is actively being talked about at Talk:Joseki, not to whether it should be blacklisted or not. In my opinion, this blacklist should be here to help editors. I edit Go related articles a lot, i am quite capable of discussing and deciding on whether links should be in an article, but right now this blacklist is making decisions that should be made by editors, not by bots. HermanHiddema (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you point me to where that strong language is used? In the above the site owner seems reasonably polity, though perhaps a bit exasperated (due to frustration, I guess) HermanHiddema (talk) 14:47, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * If you examine the spanish talk page for Dferg I believe this is the "strong language". In actual fact it is a confused and possibly rude ramble, probably caused by exasperation as to why somebody kept removing the links. Unfortunately nobody discussed why. A proper explanation should and could have been provided if it was felt this was a BIG problem, if not with the IP talk page, then certainly on the article itself. No such measure was taken. This is a very strange process therefore. That a joseki dictionary does not have merit is not, and cannot be, a reason to blacklist it. By far the more appropriate response, be it perhaps an initial response, is to explain to the user what the problem with their link is. Trying to label 10 edits over 3 months as unmanageable is totally risible and I would ask you Dirk to consider your statement carefully. Are you really asserting that? --ZincBelief (talk) 15:12, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * There are in fact a couple of posts, on es and en talkpages:


 * diff (shortly after altered:)
 * diff (afterwards removed)
 * diff (similar to the above, afterwards removed)
 * diff (afterwards removed)
 * diff (unanswered, this is not Mike Lifeguard's homewiki)

Some citations:


 * I will be readding them until I know the exact reason why they have been removed.
 * I am very sorry to call you a STUPID MEDDLING IDIOT
 * YOU MUST BE BOTH AN IDIOT AND A LOSER WITHOUT A LIFE. NOW GIVE ME AN EXPLANATION FOR YOUR STUUUUUUUUUUUUUPIDITY !!! YOU FUCKING STUPID SPANISH LOSER!
 * AND GO FUCK YOURSELF. IF YOU DO THIS ONCE MORE.
 * I'll remove your entire wikipedia page, once a week. It would be the least I can do to explain you how fucking annoying you are !
 * (last four removed and changed to) "Your behaviour is rather amateuristic."
 * Last statement also repeated on other talkpage "Your behaviour is rather amateuristic."
 * "Yet ... you seem to enjoy removing the link from several pages."
 * Or I will see no other option than looking for some more powerful friends around here. And I will find them. (added quote Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC))

OK, again, the link was added several times by several IPs to several wikis, over a large timespan, again, to the top of the list. In that meantime NO-ONE here found it necessery to include that link in the same timespan. For now, this link is added by a persistent editor that uses different IPs on different wikis, and we are not here to clean up behind other people (as we are not a linkfarm), and threatens to keep on adding the link, as (for him) not including the link is clearly not an option. I am sorry, that is within the merits of 'unmanageable spam' ..

Now please come with positive input, why do you think this link important (here we come to notability)? Is it suitable for inclusion as a reference? Does it actually add information to the page that can not be included, etc. etc. (see External links). I'll leave it here, other admins can judge further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes, I found it after the pointer by ZincBelief. That behaviour is completely unacceptable. Note, however, that only one of those diffs actually contains strong language, and that the editor removed that strong language within two minutes of posting it. Still very bad though.
 * As for notability, my entire point here has been that non-notability should not be a reason for blacklisting and that discussion of whether or not to include the link should be by the relevant editors, at the relevant articles, not here (as is happening at Talk:Joseki). I am not proposing to immediately add brugo.be back as an external link to those pages, I am proposing to un-blacklist it, so that the active editors from WP:WikiProject Go can decide on the suitability of adding it to joseki related articles. (In fact, on the Joseki article I have proposed not to add it back).
 * I remember that I noticed the addition of the BruGo link back in october, and that at that time I let it stand because I thought it was probably relevant enough. When it was removed on dec 25, I didn't notice because I was away for the holidays. When it was removed again, on jan 11, I did take notice and tried to add the link back, but ran into the blacklist (See my edit summary for this edit from two days ago, where I mention this). So someone did find it necessary to include that link in the same timespan (but you had no way of knowing that).
 * So basically what I am saying here is: This is not unmanagable spam, because ZincBelief, myself, and other editors from Wikiproject Go are capable of handling this. All I'm asking is that you trust the established editors to deal with this. HermanHiddema (talk) 16:07, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Unmanageable spam were the additions, which fall within the meta-scope of the definition (we can't keep removing links, it was now only three wikis, we have over 700 of them .. ). But:

I'll put a comment on m:User:COIBot/XWiki/brugo.be, pointing to this discussion as it is now, and remove it from the meta blacklist (if it may be of interest somewhere here, that also goes for other wikis). I will also consider mailing the owner of the site (who is apparently the spammer) asking him to engage in discussion and not place the link himself without positive response from such discussions (or is there someone within a suitable wikiproject who wants to do that?). I hope this helps. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:13, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Thank you. The editor has just contacted me on my talk page, it seems, so I will try to explain the issue to him personally. I think that should settle it, but promise to keep an eye on it. Regards, HermanHiddema (talk) 16:23, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I can certainly discuss with him on the English Language Edition of wikipedia. We have a talk page discussion there now we can use.--ZincBelief (talk) 16:20, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

(added a quote --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)). Link has been removed from the meta blacklist. It would be good if the editor understands that he now should not go adding his link to any other wiki he can find without local discussion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

I concur with Dirk Beetstra's assessment of the situation. The behaviour of users requesting this be whitelisted/de-blacklisted has been far short of satisfactory and the result is. Stifle (talk) 16:25, 15 January 2009 (UTC) Sorry, got edit-conflicted and missed part of the discussion. I think this is now settled as the link has been de-blacklisted at Meta. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)


 * I am really delighted to read BruGo is de-blacklisted, thank you Stifle. I think my apologies for strong language are certainly in place. I am sorry, some of my reactions were purely emotional and based on surprise. Sometimes (especially on a changeable medium like wikipedia) you get tempted to write down things as they pop up in your head. I do apologize, I know it's not a valid excuse. Also, I must admit, I am not really at home at wikipedia. I probably do not understand most of the etiquette. Also I would like to thank HermanHiddema for his support. And thank you, ThorAvaTahr, I didn't know there were people who actually liked BruGo THAT much. Thanks. And a big thank you for all others who posted messages here. I'm glad you all helped me through this. Let's continue discussing external links at the Joseki discussion page. (By the way, just for the record, I have nothing against Spanish people, my cousin lives in Madrid actually.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.242.93 (talk) 22:38, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

hindyugm.com
It's been noticed that there has been no traffic coming from Wikipedia to Hindyugm.com. Also, while analysing the problem, it was found that the pages where Hindyugm references were added, don't contain the references now. I couldn't find any reason why hindyugm is black listed. Only reason could be that the content of the site is in Hindi language. This site is working for connecting different arts with Hindi language. It contains Hindi poems, stories, content for welfare of children, section dedicated for music and other social welfare content. This site can provide benefits to all the people who have interst in Hindi literature and doesn't have proper understanding of English language. Those internet users can find articles related to music, art, paintings in Hindi. In India, this is very popular website among the Hindi-speaking people.

For example, the page of Mahendra Kapoor on wikipedia has content in English. If the person wants to know much more detail about Mahendra Kapoor and that too in Hindi, I think it would be a great help for him if he visits hindyugm. For the same, hindyugm link was added on the page. Another page is of Karva Chauth. This festival is very famous in India. So, another link was added on that page also. Today itself, another link has been added on the page of Legendary person in Hindi literature, Harivansh Rai Bachchan. This website can be beneficial for Wikipedia and wikipedia users in the way that it could provide much more information regarding personalities, events and literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.178.134.123 (talk) 08:28, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * We don't whitelist on the request of site owners. OhNo itsJamie Talk 16:09, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Extensively spammed and consequently blacklisted on meta:
 * meta:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2008-11
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November 2008
 * Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2008 Archive Oct 1
 * MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December 2008


 * 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/.


 * There have been rumours in various black hat search engine optimization forums that Google and other big search engines may be referring to our global blacklist when compiling their own black lists of search engine spam domains. Since these companies' decisions are beyond our control and are made independently of us, we assume no responsibility for them and you would need to communicate with the appropriate search engine. If they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative. -- A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:21, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

www.mychurch.org
Can't find the reasoning for blacklisting this - I am too unfamiliar with the lists and how they are generated, but unless something significant is there, this should be used on the MyChuch article as a link ,just like thousands of other articles. If you can't at least include the link to a site even if its on a blacklist then the whole system needs to be revamped. This kind of asinine crap is why I stopped editing on a regular basis. And don't spam my talk page please.

Zotel - the Stub Maker (talk) 20:25, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * You can use the tool to find the right sbl entry and some reasons. In this case it is:  and Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Apr_1. -- seth (talk) 22:45, 18 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Since that site's a redlink, I think this is a . Stifle (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Ezinearticles.com
I was expanding the article on Q-ratio in poker strategy and my edit got rejected because the source, an article on http://ezinearticles .com, is blacklisted. I'd like to know if an exception could be made (see edit for the specific link). Admiral Norton (talk) 12:36, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * That's blacklisted at meta for spamming. Can you clarify how it is a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 14:34, 19 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of response. Stifle (talk) 19:58, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

hanazagorova.xf.cz
complete discography Hana Zagorová including unedit songs and many others. hanazagorova.xf.cz —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.4.97.43 (talk) 16:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
 * Foreign-language links are Links normally to be avoided. In addition the site returns Cannot find server or has an DNS Error. --Hu12 (talk) 19:02, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

blog.myspace.com
blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=74346217&blogID=431013212 is a reproduction of a newspaper article that appeared in the September 08, 2008 issue of The Herald (Glasgow). This newspaper article is referenced in two mainspace articles, K-Space (band) and Infinity (K-Space album), and I would like to convert the current offline refs to online refs using this blog link. No other online versions of this newspaper article are available. Thanks. --Bruce1eetalk 12:17, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ as blogs are not reliable sources, and in the alternative, we don't link to copyvios. Stifle (talk) 20:01, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

utilitywarehouse.co.uk
Was trying to update a reference and found this site to be blocked... The company is listed in the FTSE 250 (http://www.moneyextra.com/stocks/ftse250/) so it is a little strange the site is blocked. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.149.100 (talk) 10:26, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * utilitywarehouse.co.uk/home/About_us/investor_relations/directors.taf
 * Not really, all kinds of sites get blocked. We don't need the list of directors in the article on the company, obviously, so where did you want to link it? Guy (Help!) 18:25, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌ due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

insomnia.ac/commentary/on_new_games_journalism/
I would like to use this reference for edits to the article on Video Game Journalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by UCANTSTOPTHEBUMRUSH (talk • contribs) 21:22, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * http://insomnia.ac/commentary/on_new_games_journalism/
 * . This appears to be essentially a blog post by someone whose reputation does not appear to be sufficient to make a compelling case to offset other issues with this site.  Please see if you can find other, more reliable sources. Guy (Help!) 14:52, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

worldwidealbums.net/salesdata.htm

 * http://www.worldwidealbums.net/salesdata.htm

Can I used this link for this page All I Really Want to Do (album)? The reference is about album sales, and I can't find others reliable references. Thanks. --Kekkomereq4talk 07:25, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * , sorry. Lack of a reliable source doesn't really mean we should use an unreliable one instead.  The "methods" page shows that this is not a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 14:57, 9 February 2009 (UTC)

inodetechnologies.com
This is very useful for our SMB business in India,. every month we visit this to do the monthly return. Kindly help us by white listing 63.240.133.93 (talk) 10:33, 6 February 2009 (UTC)
 * This request does not seem to be in any way connected with Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 17:45, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * ❌. Does not have anything to do with Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

filmtaka.com
I try to add this link filmtaka.com/2009/01/uninvited.html this link as a reference. which is suitable for reference section of the wikipedia page The Uninvited (2009 film). the site is blocked because previous i add so many links of this site in external links, which is unsuitable in external section & ignoring wikipedia warning, because that is my first time to edit wikipedia pages & i have a lack of knowledge how or which link is suitable for external link. even my account is also blocked, now my account is unblocked after appealing. I appeal hear to unblocked this site, because the content of this site is suitable for some wikipedia pages as a reference.--Internetguide (talk) 18:07, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Typically, we do not remove domains from the blacklist in response to those who where involved spamming them.
 * MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/February_2009
 * Special:Contributions/Internetguide
 * Special:Contributions/Movie17
 * Special:Contributions/Film17
 * Please read
 * SPAM
 * External link spamming
 * What Wikipedia is not
 * Wikipedia is not a directory
 * Wikipedia is not a repository for links
 * Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising
 * SOCK
 * Inappropriate uses of alternative accounts
 * 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) 19:03, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

ready-links.com
1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted. The site is blocked on the global blackmail list due to blocking of links.com domains

ReadyLinks is a regular business in the USA. The ReadyLinks specializes in products that deliver IP and Ethernet based services and applications at the Access Edge in both Carrier and Enterprise networks.

Website: ReadyLinks Inc.

2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. The ReadyLinks site immediately benefits, to avoid that the site descriptions get stale. Also all technical references need to be updated, eg. tr69, sip, mgcg etc....

3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ReadyLinks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TR-069

Osgrhino (talk) 20:02, 11 February 2009 (UTC)


 * See for another case, same issue, links.com blacklisting is catching other sites. ReadyLinks was speedy deleted by Hu12 a few minutes before the above post. The company might be notable, though I only found one independent and reasonably reliable source in a brief search.. Osgrhino is a WP:SPA apparently registered just to deal with this matter, and seems to be devoid of clue. However, unless there is some specific spamming report for ready-links.com, it should be whitelisted without further ado. (I'm going to ask for the article to be undeleted, speedy seems a bit abrupt for an article that goes back to 2006 or earlier. (I can see the article in the Google cache at . --Abd (talk) 05:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * BTW, it seems the blacklisting is not global, it's here. Can that regex expression be improved? --Abd (talk) 05:26, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * This should be addressed on meta, indeed, the regex should be adapted. I have no reports at all about ready-links.com.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:58, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Seth's search tool doesn't find a listing for links.com or readylinks.com at meta. I looked manually, didn't find it. But it is listed on our blacklist here. So it should be fixed here. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Expanding on Readylinks. The page was speedily deleted after a speedy request (too promotional) by another editor.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:00, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I assume. However, the timing seems to be associated with the appearance of the newbie's appeal here, it was a few minutes later. It may save some time if one of the kind admins here will restore the article; if it is considered "too promotional," then, please, userfy it to my user space, and, if it seems appropriate, blank it; I (and anyone) can then see the article in History, and a decision can be made at leisure. In any case, I make this note here just for efficiency, this isn't the place to discuss the deletion of the article, I only mentioned it because the timing creates the appearance of a connection with the whitelisting process. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 16:02, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I was the one who added the speedy request. The article was a bunch of marketing speak: 'Create innovative networking solutions based on Open Standards that solve our Customer’s needs cost effectively while providing future flexibility.' The allbusiness link listed above is actually a press release (as is much of the content attributed to Business Wire) and so does not establish notability. I wouldn't bother restoring this unless a real independent source is found. (I looked a bit, but did not find one). - MrOllie (talk) 16:13, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks, MrOllie. When and why did you add the tag, i.e., what was the occasion? The actual notability isn't relevant here, my only remaining concern is that a whitelisting request here, based on a regex expression error that blacklisted the company site, may have led to immediate deletion of the article the requester was concerned about, which is a tad bitey. However, on the source issue, I cite a possible one above, and a little time -- and with help from some COI editors or the company, which will usually know what's been published -- we might find enough source to justify a stub, if not more. Too much already, a better place to discuss this, at the moment, would be User talk:Hu12, where an undeletion or userification request is standing. If there is any further process, I assume that Hu12 would be informed, as well. --Abd (talk) 16:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The state of the article has always been quite advertising, ever since it start in 2006. The first year (about 6 edits in total) it was not too bad, but it needed a good rewrite (I would have tagged it with advertisement if I would have noticed it in that state), after the edits by an editor with an apparent conflict of interest, it was ready for a db-spam.  But as you said, this is not the place for a deletion review.
 * I think it is save to the whitelisting, but to ask to amend the rule on the appropriate blacklist which (unintended) catches this.  Thanks.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 19:51, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Will do. Thanks, Beetstra. --Abd (talk) 02:01, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

associatedcontent.com
I would like to know why is this blacklisted? This is were I get all the relible sources, but cannot post them due to it being blacklisted. Can this be whitelisted? Thanks. Tribal44 (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2009 (UTC)Tribal44
 * Hmm, there are not too many reliable sources hosted on associatedcontent.com. Whitelisting can be considered for individual documents on the site, but there are too many problems with associatedcontent.com contents to whitelist the whole domain.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:03, 12 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Why is that? Tribal44 (talk) 21:55, 12 February 2009 (UTC)Tribal44


 * 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) 00:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)


 * , but as Dirk Beetstra suggested, if there is a particular document you want to link to, it might be considered. Stifle (talk) 13:02, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

http://germany-travel-dot-suite101-dot-com/article.cfm/trier_and_the_porta_nigra
I don't care much for the domain (suite 101.com), but the specific article on the Porta Nigra is quite an accurate description in English and hence a useful English Source for Porta Nigra that is available online. Is it possible to exempt just that article? Oh and other articles that might benefit from it are anything related to Roman architecture/culture/civilization in Germany/northern Europe. --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You seem to have linked it very successfully in the title of this section. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Stifle (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
 * Well though the link was displayed in the topic, the spam filter is still complaining, meaning i can't use the url. Btw what doe "Stale" mean here? --Kmhkmh (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)
 * You could link it in the reference the same way as you linked it in the header.
 * A request is closed as stale if the requester doesn't reply to a query or issue after a reasonable time. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

lenr-canr.org (2)

 * http://www.lenr-canr.org/Introduction.html#BeaudetteBook

In order to check the Beaudette book at one of the references at Martin Fleischmann, the book has a complete account and analysis of the problems that Fleischmann had. The availability online of this book was announced on the vortex-l mailing list, which is read by cold fusion proponents. P.D.: I need the link for, among other things, getting someone to check the book and find the correct page number for what Fleichsmann predicted, as I was unable to find it. --Enric Naval (talk) 15:18, 31 January 2009 (UTC)


 * The whitelisting should be needed only for actual usage in articles of a link to the page. I find it irritating not to be able to simply put a link on a Talk page, but had there been true linkspam involved with lenr-canr.org, well, I'd have been willing to put up with it, I can just put the URL as a nowiki link -- as you did above. It does inhibit use of these materials, and this wasn't the intended purpose of the blacklist. But this is not the place to discuss that. Above and here, Enric Naval and I have supported the whitelisting of two or three specific pages for specific purposes. I'd been led to believe that this would be more or less routine, if not requested by the alleged linkspammer. Actual use of links in articles should be up to editorial consensus, not on admins running the blacklists and whitelists. --Abd (talk) 22:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The link has been pushed, not necesserily spammed. There is, as with the above request, no real need to actually link to the book, an ISBN will suffice.  And also, a convenience link is not really necessery, any form of reference makes statements verifyable.  And you don't need to make a working link on the talkpage for another one to copy-paste it into a browser and check it.
 * The purpose of this blacklist is as it is defined by the community here, and 'enforced' by admins, which may differ from the 'intended purpose of the blacklist'. --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:15, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Are we talking about: "Excess Heat: Why Cold Fusion Research Prevailed", by Charles G. Beaudette, ISBN 0-9678548-1-4, Oak Grove Press, 2000? --Dirk Beetstra T  C 23:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Yeah, that's the book. Hum, of course you want to have links to the online versions of the books you are citing, why else would I bother linking to books.google.com all the time? :D Isn't this the same case? It helps tremendously when you want to verify the sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Is the encyclopedia valuable as something abstractly "verifiable," or for how it serves the readers? As a reader, I want ready access to sources; a reference to a book or paper that I can't practically access is next to useless. What value are we serving when we rely on it's not necessary as a reason for not linking to a legal copy of a document? --Abd (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * No, that is not the point. You don't have to link for books to a specific online version, you link to the ISBN.  Linking to linkfarms is in all cases better than direct links, it gives the user the choice where to find the document.  The ISBN linkfarm will give you access to books whereever they are, a specific link may change etc., that is why we have that.  .  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:46, 2 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the response, Beetstra. Now, I followed the allegedly superior ISBN link. I agree that it might be in general superior; except that .... it led me into a maze of possibilities, none of which directed me to a free copy on-line. I spent a fair amount of time, time that would have been avoided -- and I'd have found a free copy -- simply by following a link to the permitted copy of the book at lenr-canr.org. So, at least in this case, the ISBN link was far worse than a direct one to the library copy, and worse than not having any such reference at all, for to find the free copy, it wasn't difficult to google "Beaudette Excess Heat." The search, fifth hit, I found, was lenr-canr.org. Now, a sneaky thought occurs to me: How about this search: . Finds it with no uss at all. Tempting.
 * Beetstra, do you realize how this is going to look? --Abd (talk) 00:25, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * A free copy online? So it's not copyright, then?  Guy (Help!) 20:53, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
 * JzG, that's silly. It's copyrighted (I think). Permission has been granted for it to be hosted on a particular site for direct access by anyone. Is that so hard to understand? --Abd (talk) 04:43, 8 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Again, I said that we do not have to have a working link to an online copy, if the book can be found, and it can be found using the ISBN linksearch as hardcopies in libraries (I found a hardcopy in the British Library without too much trouble), then that means that people can get the book (maybe with some trouble) and verify it. That is what verifyability is about, it can be verified.  What is the problem with using the hardcopy?  If you write a statement in the document and reference it to the book including the ISBN, and someone questions that statement, then people who have access to the book can easily verify if the statement and the book are accurate, and blind deletion because they can't verify would be incorrect.  And I don't have any reason to not believe your statement if it is referenced to the book.
 * Regarding the link http://www.google.com/search?q=BeaudetteCexcessheat.pdf, please have a look through WP:EL (though that is not for references, but I think it does get the point). --Dirk Beetstra T  C 11:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I suggest we close this once and for all. Abd is wasting everyone's time with this topic. OhNo itsJamie Talk 14:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * You ain't seen nothing yet! This is a focused discussion here, immediately after a decision was made. I've got no problem with closing it. I find it useful. If an editor doesn't, don't comment! Beetstra's comment seems to assume a narrow purpose for references; they are not only for pure verification, and that function is hampered, though not prevented, by the lack of readily available sources, but also for depth. I read the sources to understand what the article says better. And this is a matter that will require broader community attention. Waste of time? Fine. Don't participate. I will certainly examine the link Beetstra provided. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:02, 3 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Okay, I looked. The section Beetstra cited didn't hit it, but another section is more on point: WP:LINKSTOAVOID. However, the device I happened across will be useful in Talk page comments. I have often seen links to searches in Talk pages and even in project pages, such as AfD. --Abd (talk) 15:07, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Abd, why is this a 'narrow purpose for references'?? Why is linking to a linkfarm like ISBN, which gives you access to the reference more narrow than a direct link to a online copy?  Now the only online copy is on lenr-carn.org, what if a copy of a book (another than this one) is available online from 4 different online sources, do you then still argue that you have to include a) 1 of those 4, giving preference to one site, b) using all 4 (ignoring WP:NOT/WP:NOT etc.) or c) leaving a direct link out, since the text (maybe not an online version) can be found via the ISBN (hey, that gives the same result as what I am proposing)!.  Or if there simply is no online copy of a document, are you then arguing that you can't use it as a reference becuase no-one can verify the data (that would make A LOT of references on this site completely useless!!!)?  I am sorry, I can only describe that type of requests with a 2 syllable expletive that I will not write out for you.  For the above request, the only available copy was on the site, hence that is a reason to whitelist.  Here the data can be referenced, and a direct link is only convenience, it does not make the statement any more reliable.  So, as Ohnoitsjamie says, you are wasting everyone's time here, including your own.  You could be improving the document adding statements using the book as a reference (a better use of time), instead of us having to waste time to review this request over and over.  !! --Dirk Beetstra T  C 15:17, 3 February 2009 (UTC)


 * The linkfarm gives me "access to the reference"? Sure, if I jump through quite a few hoops. First of all, we are talking only about cases where there is an on-line copy of the document with permission from the author and publisher. I don't know why you wasted your own time with the response above, then complain about waste of time. It seems to me that I'm done here, that if I want to do something about this, I need to move up the ladder. You denied the request, you have and had no obligation to respond to comment on that action here. I didn't ask for another review. I'm concerned, though, about policy. Enough for here! --Abd (talk) 03:45, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * That still does not answer my questions, if there is no online copy available, does that then mean that we can't use it as a reference, and what will you do if there are more than one official copy of certain documents available online? I have given you some pretty clear reasons why there is no need to directly link to an (even official) copy of the document, as there are many ways that the information that needs to be added, can be referenced.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 10:27, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Beetstra, you want answers to questions? Okay. "If there is no online copy available," we can still use it as a reference. No claim has been made by me that we must have on-line copies for verifiability. There is no "need" to link to a copy. The issue is how we serve our readers. "Verifiability" is only part of that. Do we make it easy to learn more or difficult? I pointed out how linking as you suggested resulted in a wild-goose chase, looking for on-line copies through it, and only relatively difficult availability. I'd say that no link was superior to that. (Since a direct Google search on obvious search terms led directly to a copy. On lenr-canr.org.) Now, what if there is more than one official copy? Then we would use the more direct copy, if there is a difference. If there are variant copies, we would use the one that matches the actual reference (remember, lenr-canr.org is not usually the source publisher, it merely hosts copies -- usually.) The issue, generally, isn't referencing, as such, this has been totally missed by you. It is convenience for the reader, making it easier for the reader to follow sources without having to go to a library or engage in more cumbersome process. All the questions you raise, Beetstra, are properly addressed by editorial consensus, not by use of admin tools; that you think the job of blacklist administrators is to judge usability of sources is a serious process error. The purpose of the blacklist is to prevent linkspam, not to control sourcing; the alleged "linkspam" that was used to justify blacklisting lenr-canr.org was not linkspam at all. In the case of newenergytimes.com, linkspam wasn't even alleged. I'll take this to your Talk, because I think this an important dispute we should address with WP:DR. --Abd (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * a) some people are lazy asses who won't bother using google b) if someone modifies the source sentence then I want a handy online copy for quick-and-dirty verification without having to search every time the book on the linkfarm/google or having to fill my browser bookmarks c) online copies are the quickest to verify as you can search them for keywords d) in the cite book template the ISBN link is still available even if you set a URL link --Enric Naval (talk) 16:47, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I think that this place is a better place for dispute resolution than my talkpage. Abd, lenr-carn.org was not spammed, but it was abused, just like newenergytimes.com (for the latter there was also a small case of cross-wiki spam, actually).  I know, the name for this list is misleading, and it was originally built to do what the name is saying, but its use, and that has consensus since there are only few questions that it is used improperly for other reasons, is generally undisputed.  The blacklist is to control linkspam, and the control of link abuse.  Too many links on these sites were abused, and it was deemed that it was generally not to be a reliable source.
 * As you say, we do not need to link to online copies, we have the ISBN linkfarm. That people are lazy to actually follow that is not our problem.  If someone changes the meaning of the sentence, then there is the talkpage to discuss, or revert if it is unsure.  Yes, online copies are the quickest way, but sometimes we have to use hardcopies anyway, and that the other link is available is also not a reason that we need to fill that one in.
 * I will leave it to other admins to have a look at this. Maybe they have other ideas about this, I am sorry, I am not convinced that this whitelisting is necessery.  --Dirk Beetstra T  C 16:58, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks for defering, Dirk, I promise I won't complain anymore if another admin also declines.


 * I know that the domain was abused, but this particular link wasn't, and we shouldn't let someone's abuse get into the way of making references easier to verify (you know, WP:IAR and stuff). Also, there is very little chance that the link is abused, since this book is very limited in scope, and it could only be used on three articles at most: Fleischmann's article, Pons' article, and Cold fusion article.... and the book is already used as a reference on all three of them.... --Enric Naval (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Actually, I didn't see any evidence of "domain" abuse. Evidence of linkspam was presented by JzG, but that was based on edits that weren't links and which didn't violate policy (as to links, anyway, Rothwell is sometimes uncivil.) There are a huge number of papers on lenr-canr.org, and what I've seen as allegedly abusive (i.e., "unreliable") was one document, a DOE report, where there was a preface added by Rothwell. And noted as such, by the way, nobody would have been deceived. I've been putting together a history of this blacklisting at User:Abd/Blacklist, and the arguments given are described. Linkspam (not). Copyright violation (not). Fringe (not relevant -- Fringe sites, even if that charge is true, can be used for various purposes, if notable). But thanks, Beetstra for stepping aside. --Abd (talk) 03:53, 5 February 2009 (UTC)
 * Still fighting that battle? That was done and dusted on Meta.  The site was being promoted by its owner, an abuse of Wikipedia.  And I have now banned the site owner for POV-pushing and meatpuppetry, and the arbitrators don't seem to think that's a problem either.  I'm afraid you're pushing a heavy barrow uphill here, Abd, and it's probably time to stop.  Guy (Help!) 20:55, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * I see this is declined, I would suggest that the proposed link is unacceptable anyway as it does not only link to the single source but to a whole bunch of editorialising which glorifies the fringe field of cold fusion. As to the merit of the source, that's a separate debate.  Obviously we won't link to a site that offfers the entire contents without solid evidence of copyright release, but even with that I would wonder about the merit of a book whose publisher appears not to have published any other works at all, and does not, for that matter, even have a website.  That screams "self-published" to me.  This is a contentious area and the article in question is a WP:BLP, I would say we should be keeping well clear of self-published books. Guy (Help!) 21:00, 7 February 2009 (UTC)


 * Hum, you are right, this editor has only published one book, the author has only written one book ever, and his only hits on google scholar are the book itself, a couple of patents, and cites in fringe papers :-/


 * You know what, forget it, I don't want this source any more. --Enric Naval (talk) 21:41, 7 February 2009 (UTC)