Jump to content

Talk:Spam blacklist

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
This is an archived version of this page, as edited by TJ Spyke (talk | contribs) at 05:55, 24 March 2007 (→‎PWInsider.com). It may differ significantly from the current version.

Latest comment: 17 years ago by TJ Spyke in topic Proposed removals
Shortcut:
WM:SPAM
The associated page is used by the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that may not be used in URLs in any page in Wikimedia Foundation projects (as well as many external wikis). Any meta administrator can edit the spam blacklist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions, Proposed removals, Troubleshooting and problems, or Other discussions; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. Also, please check back some time after submitting, there could be questions regarding your request. Per-project whitelists are discussed at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

Projects

snippet for logging: {{/request|547875#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01 or Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/02.

Proposed additions

Latest comment: 17 years ago68 comments22 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be blacklisted; add new entries at the bottom of the section, using the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Provide links demonstrating widespread spamming by multiple users. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived.

meatspin

Shock site, used in vandalism (example). The primary domain is meatspin.com, but others, such as meatspin.net, redirect to it, so anything with "meatspin" in the URL should probably be blacklisted. I could dig up more examples if you want, but I can't think of any legitimate reason to link to the site. --Slowking Man 11:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is there any evidence of this link being spammed into Wikipedia? Are there more then one IP range currently doing this? Or, any evidence of cross wiki spam. Eagle 101 20:25, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It's a spam site (ad-mungous, bought by someone deliberately to exploit its viral propagation), and there has been endless argumentation about it on the talk of en:Shock site. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:47, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Has the argumentation reached consensus? What about other wikis? Eagle 101 02:32, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

"wowomg.com" is a direct link to meatspin, just so you know.--71.203.147.175 18:58, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

reexamine.info

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Linksearch&target=www.reexamine.info&limit=500&offset=0 - the site is currently 404 but hosts copies of the Watchtower and other Jehovah's Witnesses publications, without any distinction between those that are in copyright and those that are not. Since copyright goes for a minimum of 50 years from the death of the author, a large number even from the 1920s may contain material still under copyright. We have had at least one OTRS complaint, ticket 2007021310020955, complaining about links to copyright material on that site. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:54, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

There are 287 of these links on en.wikipedia. I suggest maybe leaving a note at en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses about the issue. I'm not sure who's going to delete these links; I suspect some deletions may be controversial, especially given that these are pages on religion.--A. B. (talk) 23:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Here's a long blog entry from April 2004 about the history of this site:
The reexamine.info homepage consists of one sentence: "Closed for maintenance"
Waybackmachine.org's archives for reexamine.info redirect to reexamine.org:
--A. B. (talk) 15:32, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just spotchecked one of the links -- notwithstanding the note on the homepage, the link worked (although it loaded at what felt like 14k modem speeds):
  • www.reexamine.info/60s/g68_Oct_8.pdf
    • Note: this is a 1968 publication still under copyright
--A. B. (talk) 16:29, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Given that it's under a DMCA takedown notice, and it's a dissenter's website being used as reference without explicitly stating that, I think it should be gone. Just zis Guy, you know? 21:19, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Has at least the english wikipedia been notified of this? en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jehovah's Witnesses. Its not really spam, but yeah it seems to me to be suspect, but this is something that can be fixed just by talking things through and (possibly) removing the links. We have to remember that this list is not only for the english wiki. Eagle 101 22:02, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just left a note:
I suggest someone review it and clarify anything I may have misinterpreted. --A. B. (talk) 18:59, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://*.orkut.com/Community.aspx?* and http://*.orkut.com/CommMsgs.aspx?*

A really large amount of users at Portuguese Wikipedia persists to insert spam links to yours on communities from orkut. This may stop it without block the entire orkut (like personal profiles from orkut at userpages). Examples: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] 555 16:44, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, before I blacklist something like this (that may get a bunch of people upset), lets have a bit of discussion if this is a good idea or not... I welcome any input. Eagle 101 16:59, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend blacklisting and selective whitelisting Naconkantari 19:24, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
In Portuguese Wikipedia these links are prohibited by community policy. Porantim 23:51, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

*.obsq.info

Constant spamming for the past few days. Check the history on this page. [17]

Is that the only place where that link is being abused? If so why don't you try a semi-protection or a protection. If it is not the only page, can you please demonstrate where it has been spammed elsewhere? Thanks Eagle 101 14:57, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My wiki is the only place I know of. It might be spammed else where. They just hit me again after you wrote your comment. I have protected the page... but I bet they will move to my other pages soon enough. They are obviously using proxies as the IP is different but the web links are the same. Thanks anyway.... 65.67.98.193 21:34, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, come back and let someone know if they move on. Cheers! Eagle 101 21:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

VsiSoftware.com, Inc. and Insureme.com spam -- round 3

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Now we have still another insureme.com site that's turned up:[18][19]

  • lowcostcarinsurance.us

--A. B. (talk) 08:14, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 05:34, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Hang on please! Have you researched this before blacklisting? Show me one place where insureme.com has placed a direct link. These sites you are listing are not insureme.com. They are simply affiliates through a third company. Insureme.com has no control of this without know these sites are spamming. They should be warned first. Now as for the sites such as lowcostcarinsurance.com they should be blacklisted for spamming. As for insureme it should not be unless it has spammed itself. Many major companies have this third party as an affiliate manager. I know two sites in which they are in the top 10 websites on the Internet. We shouldn't ban them. What we will have to do is take these sites on a case by case basis and blacklist them. It may be more work, but at least we will meet wikipedia.org standards. If insureme.com has spammed please place the link. If this is the case they should be blacklisted.

And the value of the link? Eagle 101 21:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com has many link values. They are listed as the third listing in google.com for auto insurance. In addition to this they have more than 50 registered auto insurance agents. They have a blog that is linked to more than 11,000 websites in which webmasters are seeking experts opinions. They have many valuable auto insurance tools that are trademarked and resources to all 50 states. I am not saying add these sites to an external link. But, some editor or user may want to provide this valuable content to wikipedia.org. They want be able to because you blacklisted a website in which has not spammed wikipedia.org. Like I stated earlier insureme.com hasn't spammed directly. Quit being lazy and whitelist this website!!! We will have to take the affiliates who spam and blacklist them on a case by case basis. But, if I was to go out and buy a website and join there affiliate program and spam wikipedia.org why should insureme.com have to pay for this. I should be the one owho gets blacklisted since I spammed.


  1. 1 Guideline for wikipedia.org - Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam.

So don't blacklist simply because of no link value. If this was the case you would need to put a blacklist on 95% of all the websites on the web.

Problem is that we are getting spammed many times by related links, Someone blacklists one, another one pops up. Eagle 101 18:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 5

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[20]

  • classic-car-insurance.biz

The same IP also spammed:

  • free-mortgage-calculator.info[21]

--A. B. (talk) 22:29, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 22:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please quit putting insureme.com as part of this spammer. This website is not insureme.com it is free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz. This has nothin g to do with insureme.com. If we think this is part of insureme.com then we need to start one websites running google ads. Google does not own the websites running google adsense. Insureme.com doesn't own the sites running there ads either.

Change title above to


free-mortgage-calculator.info and classic-car-insurance.biz

Err, actually it is from those companies, I'm wondering why we are constantly getting hit with related spam. All these sites are related to Insureme.com in some way. Eagle 101 18:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

subtitry.ru

and opensubtitles.org, subs.com.ru, titulky.com, subbiee.com, divxplanet.com, hot.ee/subland/, sub.divx.ee, subtitles.images.o2.cz, legendas.tv, andrepcg.lusopt.info

Links to copyright violating material (subtitles). Website fails WP:EL and WP:C guidelines/policies. Very same sites have been blacklisted.

Please provide evidence where these domains have been spammed. Naconkantari 04:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
OpenSubtitles.org - under each wikipedia language section on the word "subtitles". And even twice here: http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subt%C3%ADtulo see last 2 links. Other sites simply link to copyright violating material, therefore fail WP:EL and WP:C, as I mentioned earlier. Where should they be reported to to get them banned like other subtitles sites which were banned for this very reason? Same site blacklisted and more related discussion (whitelist request) here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2007/02#AnySubs.com_.28Status:_Declined.29
Not done Are we actually getting spammed with them? From those I can't tell how long they have been added. If there is not a widespread spamming issue, just revert and warn the editors adding the site. Feel free to comment below and show links demonstrating spam. Eagle 101 20:10, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subt%C3%ADtulo - check last two links in "Enlaces externos" section - same site referenced twice. If this is not spamming - you tell me what it is.

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 7

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted last month:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[22]

  • affordable-car-insurance.net

--A. B. (talk) 15:58, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This site has not ties with insureme.com. It seems that this webmaster has copied insureme.com website after joining there affiliate program. This is against there policies and they are working on correcting. Check out the domain owner. Not related.

Done - we are getting tons of spam from affiliate websites, this is just another case. Eagle 101 20:12, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

spilsbycycles.co.uk

The small town of en:Spilsby has a bicycle shop, whose domain name is spilsbycycles.co.uk.

  1. Spamvertised on 11 May 2006.
  2. And again on 12 June.
  3. And again on 15 June.
  4. And again on 18 August.
  5. And again on 16 September.
  6. And again on 21 October.
  7. And again later on the same day.
  8. And again on 1 March 2007.
  9. And again on 14 March.
  10. And again on 17 March.

Only a single article (as far as I've noticed), but the spamming is persistent and also destructive (perhaps in a feeble effort to hide the fact that he's adding something, he often destroys other links). Done from a number of different IP numbers. This is very small potatoes by the nauseating standards of other spammers listed here, but on the other hand it's pretty simple: the domain name is that of an unremarkable retailer. -- Hoary 06:01, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply 

     sorry

hi, i just want to let you know that i am sorry for the edits i have made to the "spilsby" town page on wikipedia. i kept putting the link to that cycles shop on there, then when i checked back a few days later etc it had vanished. i only kept putting it back on because i thought i must have entered it wrongly. i did'nt know that there were messages for me about it, i have only just clicked on this 'discussions page' and did not know you could talk to other users.

from now on all of my edits will be for the greater good, i have turned over a new leaf, and don't want to upset anyone. i have added a picture i took of the bus stop being built in the town, and a few other links (non-commercial) about the town etc.

File:Bus Stop.JPG

i am not up on all this technical stuff, and did'nt mean to make you mad.

many thanks http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:C.thompson

PS...i have written to the person who kept removing the link to applogise, also added the above paragrahps to a discussion board on the spilsby article too

Not done - isolated incident. Eagle 101 20:18, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

controlling21.de, controlling21.eu

Different t-dialin IPs are abusing de.wikipedia.org for search engine optimization in a really dumb way. Some diffs:

Blocking the IP did not work because these are dialin IPs of the largest provider in Germany. --217.232.148.195 07:37, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Doesn't give up:

--217.232.148.195 07:43, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also has domains controlling21.net, controlling21.com, controlling21.org, controlling21.biz, controlling21.at, controlling21.ch, controlling21.info, multimedia-beratung.de that could be used for future spamming. --217.232.148.195 08:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Goes on spamming: [30] --217.232.151.3 21:15, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Older spam: [31] --217.232.151.3 21:21, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done all of them. Eagle 101 20:19, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

beam.to

This is a url redirect site, it's already in 5 mainspace pages on en.wp --Versageek 12:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done. MaxSem 16:36, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Linkspam on customs related Wikipedia articles

In the german Wikipedia I am looking for commercial link spam in customs related articles and delete it instantly, see [32]. Could anyone please add these comercial links into this blacklist: www.internetverzollung.de, aes.riege.de, www.zollbeamte.de, import-handys.info, www.ausfuhrxpress.de? Thanks! --217.85.252.201 13:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC) (WP de-user rollo_rueckwaerts)Reply

Not done (for now) Have they been spammed, can you show that there is a pattern of abuse :) Feel free to post below here and show a pattern. Thanks. Eagle 101 20:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

exoticindiaart.com

See this link search: en, de, es, loads of others. The /article links are generally OK, but the /product, /book and /painting ones are straight sales pages. I propose we blacklist /products, /books, /paintings. Or blacklist the whole site and we'll find better, non-commercial sources for the other data. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok JzG, looks like we have the following counts of links on 15 wikis:
Total count: 168 en: 133 de: 5 ja: 0 fr: 1 pl: 0 it: 10 nl: 1 es: 5 pt: 7 zh: 1 ru: 0 fi: 1 no: 4 he: 0 sco: 0
Is there an agreement to have this site removed on the following wikis? I would worry about getting agreement from the english, and Italian wiki before moving on with your idea. Eagle 101 20:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not sure how to contact it: - I will find their amdin noticeboard. 80.176.82.42 23:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

e-library.net

Spammed from a few IPs within the same subnet (see en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.1 - blocked on nl:wp, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.10, en:Special:Contributions/212.12.28.130) Diffs: [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] Sandox 07:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have we tried blocking the IP range? (a short time can often discourage them). Eagle 101 20:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

mortgagequeen.us

www dot mortgagequeen dot us (not .com) has been spammed at intervals over the last week or so to English wikipedia; each time by a different anon IP, who does not return calls. The current technique is to replace an existing link in the references section, to disguise the spam. Recorded instances (there may be others): 69.228.86.173 Hard money loan, 69.228.88.201 Mortgage, Commercial mortgage, 69.228.94.209 Commercial mortgage 69.228.91.42 Hard money lender, Hard money loan, Mortgage, Commercial mortgage -- Notinasnaid 12:04, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Eagle 101 20:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

chabad-baden, again

A week ago, I requested to add the domain "chabad-baden.de" to the blacklist, which was done by User:Eagle 101. Now, after having http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Schawuot&diff=prev&oldid=29390917 removed] all links to the site, a user having before added links to chabad-baden.de now shows up with links to de.chabad.org immediately after my removal. de.chabad.org is (at least in its content) obviously exactly the same site as the one before, so I request to block this as well. Thanks, rdb (de) 23:44, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Done Eagle 101 20:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

TehLiqE

I'm not sure if it's possible to blacklist text, but

The sonikmatter wiki and many other wiki's have been vandalized recently with the text "Hacked By TehLiqE". See History 1 and History 2 for examples. I've tried banning the member and going to the extent of protecting the discussion pages is going a bit far (it would mean that proposed changes to the protected content page couldn't be readily done).

This vandal has hit many other wiki's as well. Check the number of individual Mediawiki Wiki's by checking out the google search google search for Hacked By TehLiquE +MediaWiki

This vandal added the single link http://img98.imageshack.us/img98/3551/adszjgpyp6.png in the second attack, and some nonsense words in the first attack.

The Puppeteer 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done we can't blacklist text. Eagle 101 20:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

anemony.info, nasturciya.info, kolokolchiki.info, orchideya.info, magnoliya.info, tyulpan.info, vasilyok.info, landysh.info, azaliya.info, lutik.info

Multiple related domains spammed the sonikmatter wiki - History

Spam is widespread see google for a list of other affected wiki's. Some examples [38], [39] [40]

The Puppeteer 04:08, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done looks like an issue, I don't know if the blacklistings here will affect all of these wikis, but it will get at least a few of them. In any case that is blatant spam. Eagle 101 20:49, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Note I did run a check of the top 15 language wikipedia's for all these links, I did not find any existing spam. Eagle 101 20:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Insureme.com and VsiSoftware.com Spam on Wikipedia - Round 8

Insureme.com and affiliated sites were blacklisted February 2007:

Here's the latest insureme.com site that's turned up:[41][42]

  • affordable-auto-insurance.biz

--A. B. (talk) 00:48, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Eagle 101 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

hai2u.com

Shock site. Example. --Slowking Man 01:07, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, I guess I need to ask this, do we have a standard to blacklist ever shocksite that we come across. As far as I have been thinking, I would just treat it as normal vandalism, unless we are getting multiple IPs or multiple wikis. I'm not sure though on what is appropriate for this, and I invite others to please comment. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

pressarchive.net

Frame site added by around 20 spam sockpuppets so far. The frame adds a pop-up ad and a frame around the linked website (in all 250 additions so far - a website (www.moviehole.com) that features interviews with actors). Each spammer registers for a generic username, adds around 10 links, and never returns. Socks use similar edit summaries and idiosyncratically format the url (e.g. www.PressArchive.net ex. diff ex. diff). Full list of spammers and techniques on WP Project spam. So far all 250 additions have been frame link-throughs to www.moviehole.com - in particular, interviews with actors. Nposs 02:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done constant spam issue. If there are legit links, use the whitelist. Eagle 101 21:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Business English Solutions International, LLC spam

See:

Links:

  • allthingschina.com
  • AllthingsChina.org
  • alternateroutestravel.com
  • businessesi.com
  • businessesi.org
  • chinahearts.com
  • chinaschoolreview.org
  • chinatravelfacts.com
  • ChinaVisaService.org
  • eslfranchise.com
  • esljobschina.com
  • eslschoolreview.com
  • eslz.net
  • hunanteach.com
  • journeyeast.org
  • journeywest.org
  • learnchinesenow.net
  • studenttravelchina.org
  • teach-and-travel.org
  • teach-in-Beijing.com
  • teach-in-zhejiang.org
  • TEFLjobs.org
  • z-visa.com

Previous remedies did not stop editor from resuming his campaign today.[43]

I suggest blacklisting the domains this time. --A. B. (talk) 04:46, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done seems like we have no choice in the matter. Eagle 101 21:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

irishabroad.com

Linkspamming at English Wikipedia:

[44] [45] [46] [47] [48]

among several others

HometownBuffet 14:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I also saw some spamming of this domain but then I also saw many links added in good faith by regular editors. Some of the pages also appear to meet en:WP:RS. The whole linking pattern was so odd that it made me think this domain might undergoing a en:Joe job from someone that did not like them. I was going to investigate, starting with a query on the Irish WikiProject but have been unable to do so due to events off-Wikipedia. I think this domain requires very careful and thorough investigation before blacklisting, including, if necessary, a possible checkuser on some of the parties on both sides of the issue. I'm sorry I don't have the time to work on this. --A. B. (talk) 15:27, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
No-cross wiki spamming going on. revert-block-ignore for the time being would be my recomendation. J.smith 16:22, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done for now, if we get more issues then we can deal with it. :) Eagle 101 21:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Proposed removals

Latest comment: 17 years ago314 comments78 people in discussion
This section is for proposing that a website be unlisted; please add new entries at the bottom of the section. Remember to provide the specific URL blacklisted, links to the articles they are used in or useful to, and arguments in favour of unlisting. Completed requests will be marked as done or denied and archived. See also /recurring requests for repeatedly proposed (and refused) removals.

obsessedwithwrestling.com

Obsessed with wrestling provides very good information and has many links in the wrestling section of wikipedia. Although not always the best source it does provide enough information and another alternative source. I am not sure why it was blacklisted, but I feel the site is more than good enough to not be blacklisted. Govvy 09:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I concur. Often a good resource and certainly not spam.

If I remember correctly, this website spammed the living shit out of en.wikipedia, hundreds and hundreds of links in very small amounts of time. JoeSmack 21:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
That was ONE user, who was promoting his columns at the site. The webmaster of OWW has since removed those columns after the user lied about spamming Wikipedia. TJ Spyke 05:51, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

asociacionjacob52.com

I don't know why this one was included, it's the official page of a Spanish Foundation. I'm working of its page in the Spanish Wiki and know I can't edit it. I personaly put all the links to this page in those pages dedicated to aerobatics. How am I going to earn money doing that? Please remove it. http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacob_52

I agree, it is the web page of the Spanish Yak 52 display team. It should be removed from the blacklist. --192.18.4.200 20:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

pavelnedved.110mb.com

This is not spam link. This is a community of Pavel Nedved's fan. Please remove this link of the blacklist.


cborgeanos.foro.ijijiji.com

Please, remove this link of the blacklist. This is the only forum in honor to Cuentos Borgeanos, an argentinian band and I created the wiki of Cuentos Borgeanos and I need put the forum's link. It's not spam.

Sorry for my English, I'm still learning.

tvrage.com

Any clue why tvrage.com is blacklisted its a useful site for TV Shows and Actors & Crew info. Please let us link to this wonderful site that's way better then http://www.tv.com

It is on the blacklist because it was spammed. See this. Regards Eagle 101 23:36, 9 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I was actually blacklisted because someone (a user who even stated on his en. talkpage that he's a member of a rival site) showed two places that were "spammed", and a sysop or whatever here quickly accepted it. No offense. If you couldn't keep one user linking articles under control, then maybe you should target the user (now blocked), and not the site being linked. ;) --Linalu24 04:17, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


First off, this is not a vote, and for now I have commented out the vote section. I will contact the meta admin who did the blacklisting. But if it has been spammed across wikis, or by more then one IP, then its not likely to leave the list. Eagle 101 04:45, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
It was actively spammed into articles by the websites owners and several "anons" - the fact of the matter is it still does not meet linking guidelines either. MatthewFenton 13:08, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

As pointed out, I added the site to the blacklist after an initial request, which seemed legitimate. The issue was re-raised in October, and because there was no detailed reasoning to the request for removing the site, along with a reasonable response by another editor, I denied the request after a few days simply because I was attempting at that time to clear out the backlog at this page, noting that I was the admin who had first added the site. Doing a quick search, I see that additional requests have also been made in December and late January. I am no longer sure whether this site should remain on the blacklist or not, having seen a variety of arguments both for and against the site; this is an issue that should be left to more discussion here, and because I've been involved with adding the link, I do not think it appropriate for me to be the "final say" on this, per se. However, I do want to point out that in the meantime, while this discussion continues, local whitelisting would enable links to this site at any wiki wishing to do so. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:36, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done Naconkantari 22:59, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


To clear up something, the person who spammed wikipedia was not the owner of TVRage but an admin, he has since been removed. although i understand why it was blacklisted, i hope in time it can be removed as the website gains more credibility.

Maybe in like a few months, it could be removed for a while, and if it's spammed, it can be quickly re-added, unless it's just one user, who can be blocked. -Sam.

nolico.com

The Spam Blacklist complains about nolico.com on the Talk page for w:Compact_fluorescent_lamp. What evidence is there that nolico.com should be on the Spam Blacklist? Chrike 05:34, 6 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reason it is on the blacklist can be found here, hope that helps. Eagle 101 16:13, 7 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I've double-checked my original request and further researched both pressreleasegold and nolico.com. I don't think they're connected and I suspect I made a mistake when I made my blacklist request. I think they had a link on the pressreleasegold site as part of some link exchange program and I thought it was still one more pressreleasegold site. I recommend removing and I apologize for this mistake. --A. B. (talk) 03:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
consider it Done Eagle 101 03:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

hem.fyristorg.com/kraftwerk

This is one of the first and largest Kraftwerk pages on the Internet, cannot understand why it is considered spam. It is listed under the "external links" section on subject Kraftwerk. Please remove it from the blacklist!

The site was spammed across multiple wikis, please see this. I would suggest that if it is useful for a subject on a particular wiki, that you request it be whitelisted on that wiki. Regards. Eagle 101 19:54, 11 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I admit that I did additions to different languages on subject Kraftwerk, and that in hindsight it was stupid of me, although I don't consider it deliberate spamming. I feel like a criminal when an excellent non-profit, no-ads site is banned because of me. But it is me who is to blame and not the site I think, it is still one of the top five sites on subject Kraftwerk. I would be very glad if you would re-consider and remove the site from the black list.

Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I think whitelisting is OK, but there seems not to be a whitelist for all languages, which makes it impossible to add to my local ones. Since my site is Swedish (although in English language), I tried to add it to the Swedish and Norwegian (similar language) wikis, they just link to this page when they tell you the link is blacklisted. I have also searched the local wikis (in respective language) but cannot find any whitelist.

The whitelists are available on every wiki. Please ask an administrator from the wiki that you are trying to include the link to add it to the whitelist. If the administrator can not find the whitelist, please direct them to this page. Naconkantari 05:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

netfirms.com

There have been at least four requests [49][50][51][52] to whitelist this on en.wikipedia. I started researching this and found the following:

"Netfirms, Inc. is the premier provider of web hosting, domain name, e-commerce, e-mail, e-marketing services and technology solutions. Our customers include families and small home offices, established businesses and large corporations. Netfirms powers more than 1.2 million websites to online success each and every day ..."

There were apparently problems with some netfirms sites in May 2006, but I think the overall domain was added by Naconkantari at another time; see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Naconkantari/sbl. The example he gives looks like one more problematic subdomain. I suggest removing the overall netfirms blacklisting. --A. B. (talk) 04:03, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Consider it Done. Eagle 101 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm taking this off for now, but if there is any spam again, we might have to put this back on. Eagle 101 04:08, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There will be spam -- there are so many sites (1.2 million) hosted by netfirms that we're going to get spam from a few there just as we do from some sites on geocities, narad.ru or any other big hosting service. I think the answer is the same as with the other big services -- just blacklist by subdomain as needed. Otherwise, we're poisoning the whole lake to kill one snake. --A. B. (talk) 15:38, 12 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is Done. Eagle 101 19:52, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com

Why did these sites get blacklisted on Jan. 31 They have not made edits in Jan. As soon as they were told they had spam they quit adding it. Do we really want to black list sites like these because someone has problems with an editor. They associated these websites with some DSB web items sites. Check the domain register and you will find no relations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.119.101.26 (talk • contribs) 00:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

See:
--A. B. (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
There is no reason for these 2 sites to be blacklisted. Searchtexoma.com is not a site in question. It is thought A. B. you have something against this IP address and you have good reason to. However, this does not mean we should go off and blacklist any sites this 24.119.101.26 IP spams us with. All I am saying is I oppose these sites being banned. A well respected editor gave the webmaster or user a final warning about the spam. The user or webmaster has not placed either one of these websites in an article or external link after getting the stern warning. Is this fair?
72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs

Multiple accounts spammed these links and they were warned multiple times: Accounts adding surfquotes links since mid-2006:

Note that a Surfquotes article was also spammed sometime last year and then in August 2006 nominated for deletion:

Accounts adding nationwidebillrelief.com links since mid-2006:

For the full story, including links to all the involved accounts' talk pages and links to all their edit histories see these links:

Note that some of the other accounts listed in those discussion that added searchtexoma links but not the above links engaged in abusive behavior with regards to making various accusations against ediors as well as spurious claims of copyright violations.

These links add no value to Wikipedia and should be blacklisted. Just the August and September abuse of Wikipedia alone was more than enough to justify blacklisting these domains. Likewise, the November and December spamming of searchtexoma links plus the abusive behavior by itself was more than enough justification to blacklist all the links the searchtexoma spammer has been adding. Any actions by 24.119.101.26 don't really change the fundamental problems with these domains or the reasons they should stay on the blacklist.

As a final note, Wikipedia blacklists domains not as a punitive action but in response to their being abusively added to the encyclopedia in violation of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. This is done to protect the integrity of Wikipedia. We seldom know who is using a particular IP address and we take no responsibility for trying to figure it out. If the Governor of Texas is adding these links, we don't care -- we just don't want the links and blacklisting them is a defensive response. No one has a "right" to have their links taken off the blacklist so they can be added back to Wikipedia -- especially when they've been added abusively and they link to sites offering no value to our readers. Can you or someone explain how either of these two domains meets the requirements of the applicable policies and guidelines:

If I have overlooked something important, please point it out offering detailed specific information backed up by appropriate links and folks will take a look at it. --A. B. (talk) 15:41, 20 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A. B. would these sites have been blacklisted if you didn't have a run in or trouble dealing with this24.119.101.26? I don't know the entire situation but according to the history of you and the user I don't believe these sites would be blacklisted if you didn't have a something personal against this user. I think wiki has some of the highest standards in the industry and though we don't like sites that spam, or we have something against someone we don't agree with, doesn't give us a reason to lower our standards. All I am saying about this case is this. The webmaster was giving a final warning and since then dropped the spam and listen to and took the warning of the editor(s) serious. Don't lower our standards to get even. We need to stick behind the word or our fellow editors. This editor gave this user a final warning and until this user goes against the warning with either sites it should not be blacklisted.
Which final warning or block are you talking about? Please refer to the following:
I count 31 warnings or blocks. Normally, you'd be looking at blacklisting after just several warnings. I don't see where 24.119.101.26 fits into any of this. --A. B. (talk) 05:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The talk page went away as soon as the article was deleted from surfquotes.com and nationwidebillrelief.com check out the history on the users. You must admit this is a clear hate crime by A. B. This is only an act to get revenge on the user. You did not make comments or suggest blacklisting until more than 3 months passed since the last article was written or commented on. You would not have seen this article if you wasn't trying to dig up information from the user trying to get searchtexoma.com and other sites banned. I don't agree or dis-agree that this webmaster or user has spammed.

The editors/ administration that removed the content and dealt with this webmaster 3 months ago did't think a ban or blacklisted was needed. They keep in mind are well respected and they was in the thick of all conversations and spam if any the user was doing.

The administration then 3 months ago had a good idea about the user and was up to date on all the information at the time. They did not ban or blacklist it. Instead more than 3 months later you wanted it blacklisted because you didn't agree or like what the user was doing, spamming or whatever this user done to you. Again this was an attempt by you to purposely get revenge on the user. You can't look at something that happened more than 3 months ago and decide against a well respected editor and respected administrator decided was the appropriate action to take at that time.

Again you only dug up this information and decided to blacklist these two sites because of the user and the revenge you was seeking. You didn't comment make any changes or have anything to do with these articles 3 months ago while the events was going on. Therefore how can you decide what action should be taken. Again we hold higher standards as editors and we don't get revenge or get even. We simply make wikimedia.org the most accurate source of information possible.

I would have the same comments for you if another editor or user tried to dispute or disagree with conversations and comments you had with a user in May or June from information you have today. You just don't have all the facts, details and conversations 3 months later. It is impossible as some users, edititors and admin make adjustments to all talk pages of the incident and all people involved. We all know this is impossible.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Not done, First off, assuming good faith applies here on meta, please don't throw out accusations against A.B. (such as accusing him of "hate crime" in bold), they are not helping anything. First off this site looks to have been blacklisted because the sites were spammed by multiple IP ranges over a long period of time, and the spam persisted despite warnings to stop. From what I see here, A.B. has demonstrated exactly why this site has been blacklisted, multiple warnings and blocks did not solve the spam issues that these sites posed. Therefore, to stop the issues they were blacklisted. By the way, I don't think January 2007 is 3 months ago anyway. If I'm somehow missing something, let me know, but please do not attack anyone. Regards Eagle 101 20:37, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

That is the problem with wiki nobody will take the time to review the information before commenting and writing. Look at you. You said Jan. 7th hasn't been 3 months. The last time this website had posted an external link was Sep. 13th which is well over 3 months. I am not going to sit an argue. I simply know that this user has a history of trying to get sites blacklisted and A.B. had pulled up everything he could find and had them blacklisted. All I am saying is the webmaster has not made any spam attempts for these 2 sites since Sep. 13th or longer. Please help uphold standards. Please look at all the information before commenting. We don't need you making choices without actually reviewing content.

I may have over looked something. When and where did nationwidebillrelief.com or surfquotes.com spam on Jan 13th? I will apologize if I had missed this important information. I have spent at least an hour looking for it with no luck. The last I have seen was Sept. 13th more than 5 months ago. Again this is simply an editor trying to get revenge. I will owe everyone including A.B. an apology if spam was posted on Jan. 13th for nationwidebillrelief.com or surfquotes.com If you can't find it go ahead and proceed whitelisting these 2 sites. If you find it blacklist them forever and inform.

This needs to be documented for the article [[81]] this was written and keeps getting removed. I was even warned. If I get banned yet keep our standards high then this is all worth it.

OPPOSE: A. B. (talk · contribs) has something against women and has made some terrible mistakes in his research. A. B. (talk · contribs) has not followed any of en.wikipedia.org guidelines. In addition he claimed to be inactive for more than 2 months while he was very active. Check logs. All of these edits should be wiped out. A. B. (talk · contribs) also has several editors/ users have said A.B. masked the truth on multiple accounts. Oppose to protect the honesty and integrity of wikipedia.org. Please, please, please spend a minute to look at all of the content before voting. I hope everyone gets a chance to read this before it disappears. All criticism of A.B. vanishes or goes avoided by locking out talk pages.

This is not a vote, and you might want to try to assume good faith, in A. B. Trust me its not a conspiracy. I'm sure he has better things to do then get a link or two on the blacklist. I don't mind if anyone else wants to have a look at this, but perhaps if you paraphrase your arguments, (not 3 paragraphs), and quit making broad assumptions about A. B's intents, and objectives, I or some other meta admin might be able to see what you are getting after. As I said on my talk page, just a few moments ago, I think I've finally got the idea... is it by chance just the two links in a batch that A. B. proposed? He occasionally makes an error in his proposals. Please clarify if thats the case. Just remember, en:brevity is a virtue. (this post is long for me!) Eagle 101 00:39, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I prepared this detailed user subpage listing every edit by both searchtexoma and texomaland accounts a while ago and asked 24.119.101.26 to comment on it, letting me know any mistakes. I posted links above to nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquote.com link additions, again asking for specifics if there are any mistakes. So far, no response.
The "has something against women" comment is, well, sort of an odd thing to say under the circumstances.
As for my talk and user pages, if someone wants to unprotect them, by all means do so. They no longer need to be protected. Cheers, --A. B. (talk) 04:17, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Would these two sites be blacklisted if you didn't have something against the above user? You dug up material more than 5 months old. The webmaster was warned and stopped spamming.

As with texomaland and searchtexoma they did spam. It seems as the blacklist was a good find by user a.b. However, I did find material from the above post where one user or webmaster added both sites multiple times. This seems like someone is spamming these sites intentional. Why would a webmaster add there site and a competitor? Doesn't make sense, unless you want a blacklist for both. Please in the future refer to me as a she. I am female and get offended like others when you refer to me as a he. All I ask. A. B. Everyone wants to know two question please. Would nationwidebillrelief.com and surfquotes.com have been blacklisted if you didn't have something against texomaland and searchtexoma spammer? How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes if not for the above spammer? These sites haven't made an edit in 5 months. Please reply. We need to keep the standards high for wikipedia.org and here the guidelines and trust have been violated.

Eagle 101 I hope this was just an error in his proposals. MAybe A.B.just mixed the 3 links in a batch. In which case I would owe an apology. But, it seems as if this spammer really got to A. B. so he decides to take everything the user wrote and had it blacklisted. Please help as we can't let spammers determine who gets blacklisted. All this user has to do is put a competitor in an external link and user a.b. will have it blacklisted. This user can then come in a place a link once the competition is gone.

What value do surfquotes and nationwidebillrelief bring to Wikipedia? I suggest you explain why Wikipedia needs these links and why you think Wikipedia has an obligation to include them. What's in it for Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? --A. B. (talk) 13:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

?

A. B. This is not about needing these two sites. It is about an error on your part. You do keep avoiding this question. How would you have came across the information to blacklist nationwidebillrelief and surfquotes if not for the above spammer? These sites haven't made an edit in 5 months. In the future wikipedia.org wants search engines to recognize our efforts in reducing and fighting spam. Don't we? So these sites could be penalized because you had a problem with 24.119.101.26 or the webmaster. You admitted in earlier post something wasn't correct about the whole situation. You said there was some competition wars had been going on. Now major search engines like google, look at these flaws and errors we have and aren't quite ready to trust the reliability wiki has. If we all work together and improve the great wiki, make it harder for the competition to have sites blacklisted and fix a few minor flaws the search engines will jump on board. Please either admit the mistakes made or answer the questions we have all been waiting for. Then we can all move on to more important issues, errors and corrections.
Can you please humor A. B. and reply to his question. Do the links even have any use on any of the wikimedia foundation projects? Eagle 101 18:47, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you Eagle 101 for having A.B. answer Would these two sites be blacklisted if you didn't have something against the above user? I stated earlier I was female. So please refer to me as a she. Women like wikipedia.org as well. But thank you for taking the time and reading comments Eagle. Waiting to hear from A.B.

  • This is a somewhat surreal conversation. What is the reason for wanting to link these sites? In what article, and to support what content? These things do not exist in a vacuum, having had a credible reason for adding the blacklist entry (which in my view we did - who spammed it is irrelevant, it was spammed), we surely need a credible reason for removing it. You have yet to demonstrate what utility there is in linking these sites, and your rather evasive response to that question, coupled with your aggression towards those who support blacklisting, positively invites speculation about your motives here. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:54, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

My motives are to improve wikipedia.org. I see some valuable content on the blog of one which seems to be very unique, original and informational. Many articles and tools that could be valuable to wikipedia.org. This information may not deserve a link at this time but could be useful later on for an editor to link to. This is more about out policies. If I spammed wiki after a warning I should be blocked. If I didn't spam anymore after a warning then I shloudn't be blocked. If I quit spamming, yet you block me 5 months later just because you don't like me. Would this be fair? No, we don't have all the facts and information. The editor at the time has my respect and if he didn't think a blacklist was in order after reviewing all the content. How could I overide him 5 months later without the information? Not Fair! I have seen a lot of cases in which a certain user/editor has tried to go back months and ban sites just out of spike. In fact he has been on this page at least 10 times and failed to answer the above question. Why? He must have been seeking revenge only. He had a site blacklisted that has not made an edit in 5 months prior. We are all trying to keep and gain the respect of major search engines and our customers. We want everyone to think of our guidelines as both fair and honest. If we would like big sites to take our spam list serious we need to follow the guidelines the great wikipedia.org has set for us. These search sites believe it is too easy to spam your competition, adding bogus links and so forth to take us serious at this time. We are not like this and I will do my best to keep wiki the best site in the world. How can you blacklist a site that has not made an edit in more than 5 months? It was simply to harm a user or get revenge. Know does anyone think a site should be blacklisted 5 months after making an edit, without all the information and without the user/editor/webmaster spamming any further? This webmaster/user or editor was given a warning about adding links or the sites would be banned so it was stopped. I think an editor reviewing this site has more information than anyone would in 5 months from now. Don't you? Things get deleted, lost or rewritten. Please anyone inform if you think we should change our policy. Maybe we can change our current policies and keep these sites blacklisted.

Some time back, I spent several hours preparing this detailed user subpage listing every edit by both searchtexoma and texomaland accounts and asked 24.119.101.26/72.24.79.46 to comment on it on that page's talk page, letting me know any mistakes. So far, no response to this invitation -- just a lot of accusations. I have spent hours and hours fooling with all of these accounts. The complainant alleges that Joe jobbing occurred. If this editor decides to own up to and identify the specific edits she or her organization made that I may have mischaracterized as someone else's, I will be happy to to reconsider. Until then, I consider this matter closed on my part. If others wish to pursue this further in the meantime, feel free to do so. --A. B. (talk) 17:09, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Forgive me, Mr. 24, but to me that reads as "blah blah blah not fair blah blah blah". I asked: what articles do you want to include it in, in support of what facts? If there are no articles and facts for which this provides support, which seems awfully likely given the type of site, then having the blacklisting removed will be a waste of your time because the links will simply be reverted form the articles themselves. So how about saving a lot of bother and actually answering the question, please? If there are specific articles or pages that would support particular facts, we could locally whitelist them, for example. Or maybe you are just a spammer playing the troll-the-admin game? Humour me and let me know the specifics here, eh? Just zis Guy, you know? 20:31, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

How am I spamming? Is discussing something on a discussion page spamming? Show me the meta/wikipedia guidelines for this. You don't think acting against a user is wrong? 5 months after making an edit these sites was blacklisted. At this time I have not made any edits ot posted any external links. I am not wanting to help these sites by adding links. I can find some articles, tools or links from these sites that wikipedia.org may benefit if you really want. But why would you want me to do this? I am upholding the law for wikipedia.org against editors who fake claims, blacklist for no reason, harm users or new guest. All I want is for admin/editors ot research the content and look at your edits and proposals before splurting something out. I am here for one reason only to improve wikipedia.org to help our customers find the best resource site in the world. So if you want me to find a link from these sites that could be of use just to prove that they haven't made an edit in 5 months, I will do it. But, it sure seems to be a waste of time. Why do we want to reward editors/users or webmasters for seeking revenge or hate against someone? This is not our policy. Let's work together and make wikipedia.org a better place.


A. B. welcome back. Eagle 101 and I have been waiting for you to answer the above question since Feb. 20. I have gave several reasons for these ywo sites not to be blacklisted. For one they was warned about spamming 5 months ago and they quit. Yet, you penalized them 5 months later. Again, you seem to have a problem with Mr. 24 or whoever so you went and had all the edits this person has ever made and blacklisted them. All I am saying is you didn't have all the facts, pages have been deleted, changed or lost. It was 5 months later. If these or any sites deserve a blacklist for making no edits after being warned, please reply. We need to change our guidelines and I will work on this. I just need the ok and the input from editors like yourself, eagles, Just zis Guy, you know? and others. However, I am glad to see you back A.B.

Here's your next step. This is the page I prepared for you:
Please note on the talk page -- en:User talk:A. B./Sandbox12 -- which of those accounts are yours. It shouldn't take you more than 5 to 10 minutes. Cheers! --A. B. (talk) 00:38, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
And incidentally, while we're on the subject of things people have been waiting for, I'm waiting to find out which article you consider this to be a reliable source or good link for. Just zis Guy, you know? 00:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A.B. My ip is recorded on every edit. I get messages at [[82]]. Why do you want me to find articles and place links from meta to benefit these webmasters? I am simply wanting editors/users and webmasters to follow guidelines. Obviously there are many guidelines broken here. Editors don't like it when they get called out for cheating or breaking guidelines. I get the same reaction when I call out a spammer. Both are wrong.

72.24.79.46/24.119.101.26, here's your next step -- that is, if you really want someone here to resolve this issue. This is the page I prepared for you:
Please note on the talk page -- en:User talk:A. B./Sandbox12 -- which of those accounts are yours. That will settle the issue of who added which links when. You should easily be able to tell which account names you or your organization used and which ISPs (for the IPs) that you used. Cheers! --A. B. (talk) 07:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

covermecarinsurance.com

http : //www.covermecarinsurance.com/articles/Automobile-Associations_5109.html is a legitimate reference in the American Automobile Association wiki. I don't want to remove it and leave the page unreferenced but I'm unable to remove some unrelated advertising without also removing that due to the blacklist!66.117.137.27 06:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request that it be whitelisted on your respective wiki, if you give me an address to your wiki, I can give you the proper page. Just get an admin to add it. Cheers! Eagle 101 14:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I just looked at that URL. The whole site looks very spammy and I see no affiliation with the m:American Automobile Association. That particular page just has a very basic 3 paragraph overview of the AAA. Also, it looks like someone has already removed the link from the AAA article today. --A. B. (talk) 14:48, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Well regardless, we never added that url to the blacklist, but we did add carinsurance.com to the blacklist. Let me fix so the regex won't catch this site. Consider this Done Eagle 101 14:55, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Eagle 101 Are we saying that this site or any similar site will be removed because we put carinsurance.com to the blacklist? This is bull. Sites should be removed becuase of spamming or violating guidelines not because of similarity to a site who violated wiki guidelines or spammed. If this site was spamming then it should be blacklisted because of this. Not because of its similarity of other abusers sites. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.24.79.46 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 17 February 2007 (UTC)... see also: en:talk • en:contribs

No I'm not, that is what I fixed, it was an error in the regex. The regex is now fixed, that is why I posted this as done. Eagle 101 03:38, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

agepi.md

This domain is blacklisted, and cannot make references to their content such as laws and articles. agepi.md represents State Agency on Intellectual Property of the Republic of Moldova. Please remove it from blacklist. Thank you

Ok, this is odd, It is not logged, it is not in any of the archives, and worst of all, I can't even find it on the blacklist. So I'm assuming that there is a over-reaching regex somewhere, as soon as I find it, consider this Done. Eagle 101 14:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Are you sure its on the blacklist? Please see this. I've successfully inserted the link into a sandbox. Eagle 101 14:45, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

blogs.myspace.com

The edit where this was added asserts with no evidence that Jimbo requested it. I would like to see at least a diff to where this request was made or it should be removed as out of process. This addition was also not logged. --Random832 13:54, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would suggest asking jimbo on his talk page, if he indeed did not request it he would say so there. Eagle 101 14:32, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
He never answered when this was brought up before, and I think that the burden should be on Raul654 to produce evidence of the claim in his edit summary. We don't know if he specifically requested that they should be added to the blacklist, or if he said he doesn't like their use of sources and was misinterpreted, or even which hat he was wearing. --Random832 15:03, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Try sending him (Jimbo) an e-mail (using the special email this user function), and request that Raul provide some proof, perhaps on his talk page. Invite him to comment here perhaps? Eagle 101 15:06, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Also, this has already been brought up here. Eagle 101 15:19, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with Eagle 101 here. But more importantly, I tend to trust Raul, barring any evidence to the contrary, when he acts in ways that suggest that Jimbo asked for things. Just as I tend to trust my other fellow admins when they say that, or when they say (on en:wp) that something is an WP:OFFICE action, I trust them there too rather than getting into revert wars or sparring about it. And when Raul makes a mistake, which is not that often, it's not because he's malicious, it's because, hey, he's human, as are we all. Coming in here and saying things like "the burden is on Raul" isn't very friendly in my view, and may not be the best approach. Better to explain why this really isn't a spam link, and ask politely for a review. On the face of it, it certainly appears to be such a link just by the name. Also, this list ultimately exists to defend the wikis from garbabe and there is not that much harm from having a link on there by mistake. More harm comes from not having links on there by mistake. So I support erring on the side of caution. ++Lar: t/c 15:25, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Hm, doesn't AGF apply on meta?--Doc glasgow 17:10, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
See this for Jimbo's reply. Eagle 101 00:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Perhaps we should start this over, and try not to get into questions of who requested what and who claimed what and when and what burdens should and should not be on whom to do what. The germaine question is: is there reason for this domain to be spam-blacklisted at the present time. As suggested by Lar, I politely request a review. I have read some of the history, and this domain does appear to be causing a great deal of heat on both sides. I think some of the reasons of this are:

  • MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and various notable people (actors, comedians, musicians) as well as bands etc have blogs on this site. Some of these people or groups are discussed in factual and informative ways on wikipedia, and the article contributors feel that a link to the blog maintained by the person or group would be a useful addition to the article.
  • MySpace offers hosting for blogs, and many of the blogs are garbage.
  • There may have been a problem in the past with links to MySpace being spammed on wikipedia. There may indeed be an ongoing problem, but I think this is unclear, and this is why I ask for the review.

As with other hosting services, there will almost certainly be problems from time to time with spamming of individual blogs/pages, but these should be dealt with individually not by blacklisting the whole domain. Are there still compelling reasons to blacklist the whole MySpace domain? If so, can these please be stated for the record, with evidence and explanation, and with details of how article contributors can request whitelisting for individual verified blogs if appropriate? I think that should help cool things down in the future. If the reasons for the original blacklisting no longer apply, can it be removed from the list? Mooncow 14:24, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Good summation. One thing to keep in the mix of course is that whether or not our honorary GodKing requested it originally, he does approve of keeping it on for now per the diff given. He's a reasonable fellow though, I hear, so if the case can be made, it should be, and he'll no doubt change his mind. That said, my thinking at this point is informed by a hypothetical... Suppose 99.9% of the subdomains/pages of a site are something that only get spammed, and 0.1% are good... In that case it would be reasonable to spamblock it, and whitelist exception the 0.1% good, wouldn't it? whitelist exceptions are harder though. If it were the other way around, and 0.1% of the subdomains/pages were spam and 99.9% good, no one would argue that we should spamblacklist the exceptions. Now, somewhere there's a point of balance. Given that it's harder to whitelist than blacklist it's probably not at the 50/50 point, it skews. But what is it, and what are the numbers in this case? I have no opinion because I have no more data, but I think this analysis might be a reasonable way to get cost/benefit understanding? ++Lar: t/c 23:26, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Could we at least unban myspace blogs from Talk pages? I need to cite a fact from a musiacian's myspace blog to counter a claim of original research. 128.122.226.112 16:47, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The blacklist extension does not work selectively. Its an all or nothing deal. The easy way around this is to simply do http://blogs.myspace.com/blah (in wikitext it is <nowiki>http://blogs.myspace.com/blah</nowiki>). That will allow another person to find the link. Eagle 101 23:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
My comment here is another example of the problem, if any were needed. The only people that can resolve this are the people who understand the technicalities behind the blacklisting/whitelisting process and I'm happy for them to act as they see fit. The only thing I would add is to question whether it is unfriendly program code that has lead to the situation where whitelisting is considered 'difficult' and that more subtle code could perhaps be made to filter on the FriendID= Daytona2 19:04, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

fotoplatforma.pl

Please review my address www.fotoplatforma.pl at the black list. It was honour to me to show some of interesting photos in Wikipedia but when you find it as a spam I was surprised. If you have possibility - check up all my links and You will find some of them are very old because many people and authors of articles find them valuable. I spent some years to collect photos of butterflies and flowers and more. Most of them are very sharp, colorful, valuable. I worked hard to add good quality links to wikipedia. More then 50% of visitors add my website www.fotoplatforma.pl to favorite, Google and Yahoo show my website very high because this content is not spam. Do you ever find my links about butterflies among apple tree? What do you mean - cross spam? Photos of natural environment means thousands subjects and if one day someone find nature as a cross spam it is really new point of view for me.

If You decided to stop my work to Wikipedia - let me know - thats all and enough to do with me. Spam list with my www.fotoplatforma.pl is unsuitable and wrongful to me thats the reason I asked to remove it.

best regards Marek foto@fotoplatforma.pl

Please also see discussion about this topic on my talk page here. I think I've explained quite well why the link was blacklisted, if you don't understand why it was blacklisted please ask. Thanks. Eagle 101 00:42, 16 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done Naconkantari 05:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/

Template:Closed2 Under what circumstances can a web site be spam blacklisted ?

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums. However, it does not appear on Wikipedia at all solely because it is blacklisted. Consequently, when anybody adds the web site to the relevant Wikipedia articles it is immediately removed.

The web site is not spam. It contains no pornography, racism, or politics. It does not contain any adverts at all. It does not sell anything. It does not promote or represent any company or individual. It does not mention any individuals. The only reason it was blacklisted is that the first person to add it was banned during conflict with other editors. Is that reason for spam blacklisting within Wikipedia guidelines ? Please let me know the original source for the guidelines concerning this matter, and under what circumstances the web site would be removed from the blacklist. --XX7 15:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the reason your site was blacklisted (see here). Basically there were many new accounts trying to add this link. I will ask the person who did the blacklisting to comment. Eagle 101 16:45, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

It can bee seen using a domain check, that the web site is not owned by an individual. Viartis Limited is a medical research organisation that is part of one of the major Universities. I know, because I work for the University. If any individual has previously claimed to own the web site, they are either an imposter at worst or only a lowly employee at best.

Are different people, or people in different guises being the first to add a web site grounds within the Wikipedia regulations for a permanent ban of that web site ? Please refer me to the relevant regulations on Wikipedia, because, even if that was the reason for the blacklisting, this does not appear to be one of the reasons allowed by the regulations for imposing a permanent ban. The imposition of the blacklisting presently doesnot appear to have been imposed within the regulations. All I see from the link provided is evidence of one person on one occasion adding one web site to one article relevant to that web site. If this were grounds for a permanent ban, hundreds of thousands of web sites would have to be removed and permamnetly banned. Under what circumstances would such a ban be lifted. --XX7 18:20, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

We are not a court of law here, the regulations are plain and simple, can we deal with the spam in any other way? If not it goes on here. Normal canidates are when people spam a site across wikis. (adding the same site to english, french, german, ect wikipedias). The second primary reason is if multiple accounts are adding the link, (or multiple IP ranges normally), and all admin attempts to stop it don't work. Again, I'm asking the person who did the original blacklist to comment, I know they are still active. Regards. Eagle 101 20:24, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I didn't mean to officious. It's just that, whatever the history, making useful information available seems to have been the real victim. The only Wikipedia article really involved is Parkinson's Disease. Whitelisting the site (if that's the correct term) would not mean that the site would appear on that article. The editors and administrators on that article appear to very resistant to alterations, and may not then enable anyone to list the web site anyway. However, consensus is able to prevail on all articles. Majority rule is well within the principles of Wikipedia, but blacklisting a good web site solely because the first person to add it was subsequently banned does not appear to be. There is no inherent fault at all with the web site in itself. If the web site was whitelisted it could easily be reversed if necessary. --XX7 21:14, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't think it has to do with "the first person to add it was subsequently banned", I think it has to do with a more widespread spam issue. Anyway I'm contacting the person who added this to the blacklist. Also just note, at least the english wikipedia considers itself as not a democracy. ;). In any case I am going to notify who did the blacklist. Eagle 101 22:03, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Mmm looks like they are not around, I will think about removing it myself, let me dig up some stuff first (see if I can find a further reason for the blacklist). Eagle 101 22:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

OK, thank you. I assume that whitelisting can be readily reversed if necessary. Given that this site appears on all the other Parkinson's Disease Forum and Organisation web sites, the issue is otherwise likely to come up again. --XX7 22:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

See en:Wikipedia talk:Long term abuse/General Tojo. --A. B. (talk) 05:41, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The above details an individual, and discusses the removal of a Parkinson's Disease Forum that is not a viartis.net web site. Judging from the details, it looks like the viartis.net web site, which is ultimately owned by a University and not by the individual, has been inadvertently included with a site that may have been owned by the individual. There is not actually anything on the page referred to that gives good reason for removal of the viartis.net web site. The discussion solely concerns reasons for removal of a forumforfree web site. The two web sites are independent of each other. --XX7 12:55, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The following is the only discussion and consideration of the blacklisting :

1. This is from an editor who was referring to a forumforfree site, and NOT viartis.net : My take on Bridgeman's sites is that it is a literature review with an end to support a particular point of view. Nothing unusual in that; you see people doing that in the peer-reviewed literature fairly often. They usually do more in the way of critiquing than Bridgeman does; his sites are pretty much cut-and-paste. The citations themselves are okay, but what's bothersome is Bridgeman's bombast about the authoritativeness and exhaustiveness of his site.

The viartis.net site does not have "peer-reviewed literature". He was referring to a forumforfree site that consists of "peer-reviewed literature".

2. This is from an administrator who in response then asked about viartis.net and NOT the forumforfree site : So do you think viartis.net should continue to be blacklisted?

3. The response was from an editor who responded regarding the forumforfree site INSTEAD OF viartis.net. Yes, I do - it's nothing unique and is indeed a slanted presentation.

The two web sites got mixed up in the exchange. Ironically, the forumforfree web site owned by the banned member was NOT blacklisted, and the web site ultimately owned by a University WAS inadevertently blacklisted. --XX7 14:49, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

A disguised (using urlsnip.com), blacklisted viartis link was recently removed from an article.[83] --A. B. (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
[http: //www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --ESamuels 21:22, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Um? what? Eagle 101 21:30, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
[http:// www.aboutus.org/Viartis.net# Viartis.net] on AboutUs --ESamuels 21:40, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why that link? I don't think this is relevent to the discussion. Eagle 101 21:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

1. viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. SeeWikipedia spam.

4. Rather than the viartis.net site being checked to see if it constituted spam, which it didn't, it's maintenance on the blacklist was due to merely asking the opinion of somebody who described himself as a minor editor, who had a personal grievance against the editor. When asked his opinion of viartis.net, he confused the issue by responding instead about a different web site.

There are no grounds for maintaining viartis.net on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam.

--XX7 13:03, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done, clearly used for spam, no discussion for two weeks. Naconkantari 23:01, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Where is the evidence of Spam ? As yet you have provided no evidence in support of your position. All the evidence contradicts you. More particularly, please address the follow points that you have so far completely failed to address :

1. Viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

2. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it does not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. SeeWikipedia spam.

On February 17th, Eagle 101 informed you that he intended removing the web site from the blacklist. Since then we have seen no opposing evidence from you.

According to the edit history, it was you that wrongly added the web site to the blacklist. You have provided no evidence in support of your position. You have not contradicted the evidence at all yet have inexplicably claimed that there is "clear evidence". You are now attempting to thwart discussion of it.

Therefore, discussion concerning your actions will be opened up amongst other Administrators on the Wikipedia Administrators noticeboard and elsewhere so that more senior Administrators can their give opinions and judgements concerning the total inconsistency and lack of substantiation of your failure to remove the web site from the spam blacklist.

--XX7 11:58, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Please do so. I fully stand behind keeping this on the blacklist. If a site is being spammed, it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site. Naconkantari 05:41, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

You've dodged the two questions I asked. It can be assumed that this is because you can't answer them. You have provided not a shred of evidence in support of your opinion. So it can also be assumed that this is because you haven't any. What are the answers to the two questions I asked ? Where is your evidence ?

You have written that "if a site is being spammed it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site." What has this to do with this web site ? What you have written is irrelevant. According to the Wikipedia guidelines It does not fulfill any of the requirements of spam. So why are you suggesting that it does ? There is also nothing in the Wikipedia guidelines that requires that there be a "strong need for a link to the site". You are trying to impose your own made up rules. An arguement can be made against there being a strong need for any web site. Yet, hundreds of web sites have been removed from the black list without there being any need for them.

Whether or not the web site is actually added to any article is a completely different question, and is up to the consensus of the editors. This discussion solely concerns whether or not the web site is spam and be blacklisted. Jimbo Wales and the various Adminsitrators that will be asked to check this discussion and your actions are going to be wondering what you're up to ! --XX7 15:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MAINTAINING viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ ON THE SPAM BLACKLIST ??? WE HAVEN'T SEEN ANY YET. OR ISN'T EVIDENCE OF ANY SIGNIFICANCE HERE. IS DISCUSSION JUST A FARCE THAT GOES IN ORDER TO FALSELY TRY TO MAKE OUT THAT THERE IS ACTUALLY SOME REASONING BEHIND THE DECISIONS HERE WHEN CLEARLY THERE ISN'T ANY AT ALL ? --XX7 21:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Just zis Guy, you know? it is obvious as to what XX7 is up to. Getting this site whitelisted. How come you keep asking this obvious question. I don't see any evidence of a blacklist here. I have a lot of respect for eagles and he choose to have it whitelisted, so that is that. It should be whitelisted for having given no warnings about spam. Any user could insert a link and have a site blacklisted. Let us know when you have a website and what is so we can show you how easy it is to have it blacklisted. There is clearly good informative information on this site and could become useful to wiki at some poing. As for You have written that "if a site is being spammed it will be placed on the blacklist regardless of who is doing the spamming and will not be removed unless there is a strong need for a link to the site." this is not our policy. We give our editors a warning on a first violation. This will be to help them understand our guidelines and understand wikipedia.org is not for spam. If we blacklist any site regardless of spam, all webmasters could add there competitors website and have it blacklisted. We need to research and share our thoughts with other editors and users.

See, here's the problem: if someone asks why a site should be removed from the blacklist, variations on "it's not fair" or "it's not within the letter of subsection 3 para 4 subpara 9 of the blacklist policy" is just so much Wikilawyering. Meta admins are not stupid, and Wikipedia admins are not either. Things tend to be blacklisted for good reason, and tend to need a better reason for removal than vague arm-waving about how it might one day be a good source for something and we can't prove it was spammed. Which we can, incidentally, e.g. [84]. So: you are General Tojo and I claim my five pounds. Just zis Guy, you know? 00:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Just guy this is the English verison of meta.wikimedia.org. You are in the wrong place, we can't understand your comments, currency, spellings or generals.

Please only place content relavent to the discussion. Editors aren't stupid but you can't spell and your content looks stupid to Americans. What does dopamine have to do with this site being blacklisted or whitelisted? If you can't take harsh messages, quit editing.

JustGuy, that's right "Things TEND TO BE blacklisted for good reason". They are not always blacklisted for good reason, as is very obvious. That's the whole reason for this discussion page. If blacklisting is always completely infallible as you claim, then you should be suggesting the ridding of the entire page and requesting that there never be any questioning of blacklisting because it was always justified. Nobody has written anything like "subsection 3 para 4 subpara 9 of the blacklist policy" as you have claimed, or done any "vague arm-waving" as you have claimed. The edit history of this web site is well established. It was blacklisted after being added to only one relevant article on only one occasion for fifteen minutes ! That is not merely being unable to prove that it was spammed, that is indisputable evidence that it wasn't. The web site itself contains not a single advert and sells nothing whatsoever. If we used your criteria for blacklisting every single web site on Wikipedia would be blacklisted. Nobody would ever be able to dispute it, and having been added only once or twice would be hard evidence of it being spammed ! --XX7 11:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I have pointed out, my user page indicates that I can spell perfectly well. I venture to suggest that my command of the English language, both British and US usage, is better than yours. My typing is inaccurate, due to the bone-deep burn scars on the fingers of my left hand, but my spelling is generally pretty good. The evidence that this site was spammed by GeneralTojo, a long-term Wikipedia abuser, is compelling. Your argumentation, on the other hand, is not. 80.176.82.42 23:38, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Langmaker.com

Please remove this domain from the blacklist! I don't see the point why this harmless site should be regarded as spam. I personally find it the most important reference in things concerning constructed languages. --primordial 20:25, 18 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Here is the reason why this was added to the blacklist. If it is useful, I would suggest requesting whitelisting of a particular page of that website (whatever page it is that you need). Eagle 101 17:16, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I don't see the role Langmaker.com is playing here. Only because some troll in fr:wp is spamming about a languague called 'latin moderne', everyone has to 'renounce' the information given on this site? in de:wp we have a portal about conlangs. in the section 'weblinks', the first one is langmaker.com -- thus making it impossible to edit the entire page. --primordial 14:15, 27 February 2007 (UTC) ('user:primordial' on de:wp)Reply
Mmmm... let me look into this... though a potential solution for now would be to whitelist it on de... Again give me a few hours to a day. Eagle 101 01:16, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, lets at least notify the French that we are considering taking this link off the blacklist, as it was them that took the primary brunt of the spam. Eagle 101 01:20, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for your help. But as far as I can see, the only object of spamming is the subsite http://www.blangmaker.com/db/Modern_Latin. Where can I ask the french to recall their request for blacklisting, or is this an admin issue? --primordial 08:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC) ?? --primordial 09:07, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would recommend not removing this site from the blacklist due to the amount of evidence presented here Naconkantari 19:07, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Which evidence?! Have you looked through this at all? Give me only one reference where langmaker.com is used for spamming except its subsite "Modern Latin"! I just can't understand why this incidence can block a site for more than three weeks now. Please do something, or give me a hint what to do, for this issue is sooner or later getting annoying. --primordial 08:32, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sorry if I failed to show patience, you guys sure have a lot of resentment about people like me. Please answer me just one question: Would it be possible to reduce the blacklisting to the subdomain "langmaker.com/db/Modern_Latin"? --Primordial 11:50, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Freemasonrywatch.org

Masonic editors are continually deleting this website and making false accusations that it has been made inadmissable by Wikipedia. Masons dislike this website because it exposes them. It is one of the largest and highest ranked websites on Freemasonry on the internet. Do not allow Masonic censorship on Wikipedia.24.68.248.67 02:45, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The site was blacklisted because of this. Eagle 101 17:15, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Because of what? An Editor who is a Freemason doesn't like a website that contains articles critical of his group? Please provide the reference that Arbcom ever made such a ruling, if you can't then remove the 'blacklist'.24.68.248.67 15:30, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
The poster who made the original blacklist request is a known masonic editor with a heavy pov bias. The website in question contains articles critical of the group he is a member of. Arbcom never made any such ruling as this individual alleges. There is no precedent for banning a website in this way. The website is fully within Wiki guidelines of acceptable content.King james version 15:36, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Checking some cron's of article, seems like this removal proposal is not totally pointless. Please, investigate further, seems like the spam was made to defamate a legitime opposition source. --Jollyroger 14:09, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done Naconkantari 19:04, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Whoa, I'm not sure that this was such a great idea. Freemasonrywatch.org is a favorite of long-term POV pusher and banned user on the English Wikipedia, Lightbringer. It is number 2 on the list of top conspiracy sites. This link has NO USE WHATSOEVER on wikimedia projects. Cheers, PTO 19:12, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, Reversed due to new link. In the future, please provide this kind of evidence before a site is removed or added to the blacklist. Naconkantari 19:33, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

namebase.org

I would like to see a justification for the entry for namebase.org; true, the site offers for-fee copying and duplication services, but it is after all a 501(c)3, and these services are only incidental to the site's rather interesting and useful value-added name indexing services. Also, its occasional linkage hardly constitutes "widespread, unmanageable spam" as per the guidelines (quote: "Only blacklist for widespread, unmanageable spam"), and there is no evidence that links are being added by bots, or by human agents of Public Information Research. Thank you. 68.236.38.185 23:27, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

The reason why it is blacklisted:
#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
namebase\.org
If it is still redirecting requests, then its going to stay on the list. We generally don't like url redirect sites as they can be used to circumvent this list. Eagle 101 23:35, 19 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Understood, and a valid point; but could you jury-rig an example so we can see what you mean? Otherwise it's hard to verify this, being as linkage to the site is, you know, blacklisted.
Requested denied. It's one of Brandt's sites. Raul654 18:26, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
None of the six nonprofit, noncommercial, tax-exempt domains on the spam blacklist has redirected since June, 2006. They redirected from April, 2006 to June, 2006. You can verify by clicking on a link inside a preview page. See: wikipedia-watch.org/raul654.html 68.90.165.218 23:07, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done Sorry, but we're not going to be sending any traffic Mr. Brandt's way. Raul654 00:10, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I beg to differ. If these are no longer redirecting, then they should be removed from the blacklist, which explicitly exists for the purpose of blacklisting spammers. The addition to this list in the first place was problematic, but we avoided creating a separate list for the time being since there weren't enough compelling reasons to do so. But if Brandt has truly stopped redirecting his sites, there is no reason for them to remain listed, whatever our dispute with him may be.--Eloquence 22:43, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You are right. What kind of a response is 'we're not going to be sending any traffic Mr Brandt's way?' It's not very mature is it? Pursuing petty feuds through wikipedia's official blacklist is not very becoming of a serious encylopedia. 87.74.10.185 11:13, 3 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
While not wanting to send traffic to Brandt is clearly a bad reason to keep the site blacklisted, I have to say that I don't see much gain in taking it off the blacklist and the probability that Brandt will use it for redirecting again seems high. On the whole, this isn't worth it. JoshuaZ 03:01, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

davincisketches.com

I would like to respectfully request that this site be removed from the blacklist. I added the link to the site to what I thought to be related articles in a few different languages with no ill intent. I apologize if I violated any posting rules it was not my intention. If it would be possible to have it unblock, I would be very grateful to have it solely on the main Leonardo da Vinci Page and if removed from the blacklist I will add it to no additional pages. Thank You.

Site full of ads, most of the images can be found in better resolution and without ads here. Strongly against removal. --Jollyroger 16:20, 27 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Listen this is ridiculous. The fact that the website has ads does not mean that it should be blacklisted. It contains a lot of images that aren't contained on the Wiki commons. Not to mention it is making alot of pages increasingly difficult to edit, because not just the Da Vinci page itself links to it, but many the pages of his subsequent works. It should be un-blacklisted because

1. It contains very, very few ads to begin with 2. The sight contains many, many useful images, with accurate source guides, and an overall good construction 3. It's being black listed is causing difficulty in editing. 4. The person who inserted them as asserted that they were placed for good use (and I beck him/her on this choice), and not to Spam. 5. It is obvious the intentions of the website are to present useful and insightful information, not advertisements.

I would sincerely appreciate it if this were taken off the banlist. Thanks a bunch.

--72.196.250.18 05:41, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

('Chopin-Ate-Liszt!' at Wikipedia, please let me know the response to this on my Wikipedia page.)

Not done, request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 05:42, 9 March 2007 (UTC)#Reply

This is a very good site for Leonardo da Vinci sketches - by far the best I've seen. The claim that the site is full of ads is ridiculous. There are hardly any ads on the site - far less than most web sites. The other claim, that there is a better site for Leonardo sketches is also false. The other site referred to has far fewer sketches and is very poorly organised. I'm very surprised that the davincisketches.comt web site has ever come to be on the blacklist. People interested in Leonardo da Vinci are being denied a very good source of information because it is blacklisted. --XX7 18:26, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes please remove - Jolly Roger's comment above is wildly inaccurate. The Category "Drawings by Leonardo" contains 11 items! The sketchbooks are a different matter. See en:Leda and the Swan where this is the only source for two drawings, for a painting never made, by Leonardo. Ads are inconspicuous. 87.194.23.18 19:14, 12 March 2007 (UTC) - Johnbod from enReply

Good reason has not been given for preventing removal because there is none. --XX7 11:08, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

fisheaters.com

I would like to request that this site be removed from the blacklist, and a link be allowed in the Traditionalist Catholic Wikipedia entry. I asked on spam-whitelist, and they suggested I propose it here.

The reasons for the blacklisting of it is here

Please unblock this site. I think that this site is a good external link that balances out the other ones. I think it meets the following criteria:

Sites that contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article due to copyright issues, amount of detail (such as professional athlete statistics, movie or television credits, interview transcripts, or online textbooks) or other reasons.

There is tons of information on traditional Catholic practices, culture, etc., that is well-researched and gives verifiable references; I've been visiting this site for almost a year now and think it will be valuable to others interested in Traditional Catholicism. I read the talk pages on it, and what I think happened is a bunch of well-meaning people pasted a bunch of links to it before understanding what wikis are about. Then a big argument ensued where everyone loses because this is blacklisted and can't be used as an external link. I think this site should be whitelisted, and a link from the Traditional Catholicism page allowed.

I read JzG's page, and I've read the FishEaters' site response. I respectfully think JzG misinterpreted some of the actions and is confused about some of the things.

For example, JzG says: For the rest, most of the articles were not even specific to Catholicism, let alone the disputed branch of Traditionalist Catholicism. Some of the content linked appears superficially neutral (although the overall tone of the site is not); many of the links failed to include sufficient text to inform the Wikipedia reader beforehand that the site represented a minority view, and the breadth and format of the links triggered the spam radar.

But then JzG lists the articles that he removed links from, and they are all about Catholicism, etc. The site clearly states that it is a Traditional Catholic site (though wiki refers to it as Traditionalist Catholicism, such Catholics refer to themselves as Traditional Catholics).

Again, I think this is just a case where people got off on a bad foot. I understand JzG's concerns, and I would be happy to address them point-by-point (though the blacklisting is a year old). But I would like this site to be removed from the blacklist and a single link allowed at the wikipedia Traditionalist Catholic article. It has a lot of good original information for people wanting to learn about Traditional Catholicism. Krnlhkr 09:45, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, so you want to add it to one page? If so, can you tell me what the url that you want to include, I don't think on the whitelist they knew of this. Please give me a "deep" link into the site, and I will do a whitelisting of that, if we only need this on one page. Regards Eagle 101 19:58, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, what I would like to do is add a single link pointing to the main Fish Eaters page to the external links section of the wikipedia Traditionalist Catholic article here. That would be to http://www.fisheaters.com and the description would be the site title (The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism). The site itself is comprised of original essays, information, cultural practices, religious practices, etc. and as such is completely dedicated to Traditional (Traditionalist sic) Catholicism. That's all I'm asking for. A single link to the main Fish Eaters page in a single Wikipedia article. Would that be OK? Thanks, I really appreciate it. Krnlhkr 03:34, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Is there an about page or something, so that we don't have to whitelist the whole thing? (given the spam issues). Something like www.fisheaters.com/Some_sub_page. That might be best. In addition, have you gotten consensus with the article editors on that page? IE, everyone agrees to this? If so please post something (agian) on the whitelist and I will do the whitelisting. (Given that you give me a "deeplink" (like www.fisheaters.com/Some_sub_page). Eagle 101 17:45, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Sure, I can find a deeper link that is appropriate. Let me talk to the article editors and see if they are OK with this, and if so, I will post on the whitelist. Thanks again for your help, I appreciate it. Krnlhkr 23:55, 22 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Looks like this is Not done as this link will end up going to the whitelist, when and if the english wikipedia wants it. Eagle 101 03:49, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Being a nasty suspicious bastard I checked Krnlhkr's edits on en:. Guess what I found? [85]. First edit: requesting whitelisting. Second, third, fourth edits: arguing about it on en:talk:Traditionalist Catholic. No other edits. Is that a rat I smell? Feh. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:25, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would object, I was one of the editors. The Fisheaters site is just not a good source, is not notable, and was blacklisted because the editor was using wikipedia to drive traffic to her site. She had an army of new editors with one or two edits appear to re-add the links against consensus. Fisheaters also continues to maintain a "how to attack wikipedia" page [86]. Dominick 13:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

This URL (fisheaters.com), just this minute, was reported as blacklisted when trying to save Circle of stars without it existing in it. How come? --129.178.88.68 14:27, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Have a read of the conversation above, its on the blacklist. Eagle 101 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

What attacks would those be?

Guy, since you are referring to a link now removed, I'm assuming you're referring to a discussion forum thread that was a copy-paste of a section of evangelize.html. There was nothing attacking in it except for the name I chose for the thread, a name that admittedly sounded pretty bad (yeah, it definitely was an unfortunate name, but was one rooted in the idea of the "Church Militant." I apologize for the misunderstanding.) But the text of the thread simply encouraged Catholics to not sit around and expect fairness and balance if they don't get busy. Like the text of evangelize.html it was copied from, it encouraged fairness, NPOV writing, etc., and gave instructions (from a second link I have) on how to edit Wiki. To evangelize.html, I later added a characterization of the Wiki editing experience which sounded a bit bitter (now removed), warning, in essence, that editing isn't for the sensitive types like me, but I never -- not once -- encouraged adding links to my site (for further clarification, I also added, just this morning, text that explicitly admonishes against the now-moot idea of adding any links whatsoever to my site without gaining consensus on Talk Pages since it seems that that page was being understood by Wiki admins differently than I'd intended).

As per "spamming," I can only say that I definitely and admittedly added many links to my site. I did so, though, in 2005, before there were any rules against adding links to one's own site, and did so on relevant pages (see your own list). I did not limit my Wiki editing to adding links, as has been unfairly said. I edited under the name Used2BAnonymous for months, and my contributions can be seen (you'd have to go back in the History past the infamous edit war of that night in Dec. 2005 to get to them. If you stop there on the first History page or two, link-adding -- or reverting -- is all you'd see). I am far, far too sensitive, depressive, and sarcastic (and busy) to be a Wiki editor, so it'd all be water under the bridge except for untruths that continue to be told (such as on the Trad Cath Talk Page as we speak), for the characterizations of me and my site when the topic of my site comes up on these spam pages, for the fact that other wiki-media (and Google may in the future) use Wikipedia's blacklist, and for the double standards in play when it comes to linking and which are defended even after being brought to admins' attention (Traditio.com? Chabad's waldorf salad recipe? Sheesh), even in the context of discussing whitelisting FE so that links can be discussed on Talk Pages by people with some familiarity with the topics involved instead of just obliterated and called "spam." I dunno... it's all just sad and frustrating. Peace. 75.46.74.131 18:57, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • You represent as untruths things which are differences in interpretation, which is rude and unhelpful. And once again: your aim is, and always has been, to include links to your site. Wikipedia is not a link farm or referral service, and sites of no objectively provable authority cannot be used as sources, so there is really nothing more to be said. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:07, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I don't want the site's pages to be used as a source, but as external links for further reading, and I would like for the site to not be characterized as "spam." I am unclear as to what things above are being represented as untruths which are, rather, differences in interpretation, but I will go through the points (in bold) you make on the User:JzG/Fisheaters page:

Re. the the links you have at the top of the page to "prove" how Wiki was my only source of traffic:

1) Now there is only one link showing from Wiki to FE at Yahoo 2) Yahoo now shows 15,600 links to FE 3) Yahoo shows 5,421 links to kensmen.com 4) User contributions are the same, of course 5) kensmen.com has no traffic data at Alexa 6) fisheaters.com has a 298,872 traffic rating at Alexa (this numer goes all over the place, BTW; I've seen it much higher and much lower. The traffic rank for the US is 78,773 as of this date.

Re: "Alexa reports show Wikipedia as the major site linking in to the old domain, the new one has too low a ranking for the report to be there yet I think.": Yes, the ranking was low -- because it had just moved; at that time, as far as Alexa was concerned, FE was days old. I offered to make a temporary password and let you log in to see my Urchin stats even so you could see that traffic was just fine, Guy, in spite of Alexa ratings. In any case, now there are no Wiki links to FE, and the site does fine per Alexa (see #6 above).

Re: "It is reported that the forum attached to this site has 6 moderators and 300 members; this does not address the concern that the site itself appears to be a monograph. There is no evidence of the site being run by an organisation (or even a person) independently recognised as an authority on catholicism in general (per the breadth of linking) or even on traditional catholicism (re the proposed restricted linking).": The site has 8 mods and 1,091 members as of this date. The site is run by me, a single individual whose work is respected and linked to by priests, parishes, dioceses, the Latin Mass Society of England and Wales, Latin Mass Magazine (edited by priests), the Catholic Encyclopedia, the Revealer, Turnabout, universities, etc. The site shouldn't be used as a "source," but as an "external link" for further reading.

Re: "About Spam" section: The most commonly understood definition of the word on the Internet is the one that should be respected, IMO. Otherwise, it'd be like me publicly and repeatedly calling someone a "twat" and, in response to offended complainants, referring them to my own personal definition, e.g., "by twat, I mean helluva nice guy." It really is extremely painful to me to be referred to as a "spammer," JzG. I hate spam with a passion.

Re: "That is an evasion. WP:EL existed and was pointed out during her edit war over removal of the links, and ignored": The WP:EL as of the last day of December 2005 follows the colon, and when all that was going on, I was fruitlessly begging for official clarification as to policy (see my now deleted RfC against Dominick): http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:External_links&oldid=32525225

Re: "For the rest, most of the articles were not even specific to Catholicism, let alone the disputed branch of Traditionalist Catholicism": See your own list of links on the User:JzG/Fisheaters page. These are the entries -- all of them -- that you list:


Advent All Saints All Souls Day Altar bell Angelus Annunciation Anointing of the Sick Apologetics Ascension Ash Wednesday Assumption of Mary Baptism Barbara Benedict of Nursia Blaise Brigid of Ireland Candlemas Catherine of Alexandria Catholicism Christian Christian symbolism Christian view of marriage Christian-Jewish reconciliation Christmas Church bell Circumcision Confession Confirmation (sacrament) Crucifix Day of the Dead Dispensationalism Easter Epiphany Eucharist Eucharistic adoration Ex-voto Fasting Funeral Good Friday Habemus Papam Halloween Holy Orders Holy Thursday Holy water Icon Immaculate Conception Incense Indulgence John the Baptist Labyrinth Lent Litany Liturgical colours Liturgical year Marriage Martha Mary Magdalene Mary, the mother of Jesus Mass (liturgy) Massacre of the Innocents Maundy money Mel Gibson Michaelmas Modesty Mortification of the flesh Novena Nun Palm Sunday Papal infallibility Papal Oath Pascendi Dominici Gregis Penance Pentecost Pilgrimage Purgatory Relic Religious order Requiem Ritual purification Rosary Sabbath Sacramentals Saint Agnes Saint Anthony of Padua Saint James the Great Saint Joseph Saint Patrick Saint Valentine Second Vatican Council Sign of the cross Stations of the Cross St. Stephen's Day Subsidiarity Sunday The Passion of the Christ Thomas à Becket Traditionalist Catholic Tridentine Mass Twelfth Night (holiday) Veil Vestment Votive deposit

Re: "Some of the content linked appears superficially neutral (although the overall tone of the site is not)": The overall tone of the site reflects an in-communion with Rome, Vatican II-accepting, "Benedict XVI is Pope" type traditional Catholicism allowed per the papal document, "Ecclesia Dei" (which can be read on the site) or at the Vatican website, if you prefer. I attend Masses offered by indult, by priests who operate with ordinary jurisdiction, under plain old Bishops appointed by men whom probably 99% of the world recognizes as Popes.

Re: "many of the links failed to include sufficient text to inform the Wikipedia reader beforehand that the site represented a minority view": The view is an accepted Catholic view, the site's full name is "Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism," and I said I'd have no problem whatsoever with links to the site being labeled "traditional" or "traditionalist."

Re: "Many of the links were identified as "traditional Catholic view of foo" or "Catholic view of foo". As identified subsequently on Traditionalist Catholic, traditional is ambiguous in context, arguably implying elements of Catholic tradition, whereas this is traditionalist, i.e. dissenting from Vatican-II, a minority group within Catholicism.": Read the "About This Site" page (contact.html). This is simply untrue and is probably even more painful to hear than being called a "spammer" since the typical Catholic reading that sort of accusation runs in the opposite direction.

Re: "This means that it is hard to find eviodence of the site owner adding content rather than just links.": I used to edit under the name Used2BAnonymous, and spent months -- practically day in and day out -- working on the entry "Traditionalist Catholic." See the Talk Pages there.

Re: "In almost all cases adding the link was the totality of the edit, no content was added at the same time.": See the edits of Used2BAnonymous (before the edit war of that day in December 2005).

Re. "In at least one case the link was to the text of a document which originated with the Vatican, and for which the original was available (in English) form the Vatican website.": Not by me (though I did have many links to papal documents in the Traditionalist Catholic entry since they were handy to me, I was a new editor at the time, and I was working offline. BTW, documents that precede the reign of Leo XIII aren't available at the Vatican website.).

Re: "Since the site was blacklisted the site owner has tried very hard indeed to get it removed, with numerous requests to the spam blacklist for removal, emails to admins and to Jimbo Wales, a campaign page on the Fisheaters website and other activities.": I requested once here that it be un-blacklisted, and others have as well (I try to watch this page). When the site is mischaracterized here or on Talk Pages, I defend it. I did write to Mr. Wales (twice, about a year apart) asking him to intervene. I don't believe I've ever written to any other admins. There has been no request, let alone a "campaign," at FE or its forum for anyone to go and get the site de-listed.

Re: "The site owner does not even identify herself or her credentials. It is a website of no objectively provable authority.": I don't expect the site to be used as a "Source" but would like for it be used as "External Links" for further reading. Given that it is linked to by priests and parishes and dioceses, that it is used by RCIA programs and such, I think it should pass the litmus test there. (Just within the past couple of days I happened across a priest's blog in which Father -- mistaking my site for being one run by some French blogger named "Eric" because "Eric" links to FE -- said, "...there is an English section entitled 'Fish Eaters' in which he attempts to give guidance on everything a catholic should know. You'll find descritions of everything from devotions, sacraments, the liturgical year, consecrations to the Sacred Heart/Immaculate Heart, guidance on appropriate attire at Mass, etc. It's for Catholics, Protestants, or anyone thinking of becoming a Catholic. I'd say much of what he posts would constitute excellent study material for those on an RCIA course with appropriate guidance from a priest. He comes from an unashamedly 'traditional' position." ( http://south-ashford-priest.blogspot.com/2007/03/ut-pupillam-oculi-i-recently-discovered.html ). I see that sort of commentary all the time from priests and laymen.

I don't go on about myself at my site because I am shy, depressive, and a loner. I don't misrepresent myself in any way; I just try to teach and let the work speak for itself.

As said, this is all just sad. 75.46.74.131 01:17, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • If you had an account you'd be indefinitely blocked for disruption now, given the amount of the community's time you've wasted arguing to be allowed to link your site. It's not an attributable source, it's been spammed, it's blacklisted. If you find these arguments stressful, try not having them. WIKIPEDIA IS NOT A LINK FARM. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Guy, I am fully aware that Wikipedia is not a link farm, but neither should it be a slander farm. It is also sad to see that you regard a defense against your misperceptions -- untruths that are publicly and repeatedly stated as fact whenever the issue arises -- as "disruption." I would not have to have these arguments if you would stop mischaracterizing my work. 75.46.90.135 11:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Facts as documented. Nobody forced you to edit-war about links ot your own site, and I have tried to be as accurate as possible in describing the site and the problem. You disagree? Hardly a surprise. But in the end it hardly matters - a site that has been Wikispammed and blacklisted as a result, and which is not a reliable source, and whose principal proponent is its owner, can stay on the blacklist. Every day we delete such links and block editors who add links to their own sites and fight about it. I fail to see that anything much has changed here, you are still a site owner agitating for links to your own site, an exchange which undoubtedly benefits your project more than it benefits ours. Perhaps you should take no for an answer, you'd save a lot of time. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:59, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not sure how you can refer to the User:JzG/Fisheaters page as containing "facts as documented"; the above post of mine proves you to be mistaken on those points, so, of course I disagree. It is hardly surprising because, being very familiar with every word on my site, I know that the site isn't, for ex., "dissenting from Vatican-II." I was not planning on adding links to my site, but some people want to and have tried to, only to be told that the site is "spam," and to be referred to User:JzG/Fisheaters, which contains erroneous information that I am attempting to get you to stop spreading around. That is the issue. 75.46.90.135 18:48, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Er, no it doesn't. The key points are in any case: you added many links to your site, you fought when they were removed, you solicited your forum members to come to Wikipedia to push your agenda, and instructed them on how to avoid being spotted, you have expended many kilobytes arguing to be allowed to link to your site, and not even you claim that your site is a suitable source. You just want links. The answer is: no. Even if we were inclined to allow links to your site, which I for one am not, you are the very last person who should be agitating for them. Now please stop spitting in the soup. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:13, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • "you added many links to your site": Yup, see above..
  • "you fought when they were removed": Yup. Dominick, who apparently thought the site was a "blog," got pals to take them down and replace them with sites with embedded midi files and other such fine things. Why wouldn't I?
  • "you solicited your forum members to come to Wikipedia to push your agenda": Not true.
  • "and instructed them on how to avoid being spotted": Not true again.
  • "you have expended many kilobytes arguing to be allowed to link to your site": I've spent a lot of time trying to get you to stop mischaracterizing my site and slandering me.
  • "and not even you claim that your site is a suitable source": An external link for further reading is not a source.
  • "You just want links": That'd be nice, but I'd be happy if you just quit lying, like I told you months ago.
  • " Even if we were inclined to allow links to your site, which I for one am not, you are the very last person who should be agitating for them.": Last time I looked, my name isn't krnlhker.
  • "Now please stop spitting in the soup": I'll stop what you consider "spitting in the soup" when you stop lying. 75.46.90.135 09:23, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • And now you show your true colours. Perhaps this was you after all, I did not believe it was. How much of the above verbiage is Krnlhkr? Almost none. And there is only one person to blame for your past actions being dragged up again and again: every time you come back to argue for links to your site, your past action in adding links to your site and fighting over their removal is likely to be reiterated. Solution: go stick to your site and we'll stick to ours, and leave each other alone. The only reason I keep my subpage is because you keep coming back and starting the whole rigmarole again. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:16, 10 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

No, Guy, this was me: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:JzG/Laura&diff=60446315&oldid=59446189 Krnlhker's posts are signed with "Krnlhker"; the rest above are mine. I am not here arguing for links to my site; I am arguing for an end to the public mischaracterizations thereof and, because other Wiki media use your blacklist and because there is talk of Google punishing sites on that blacklist, I also would like whitelisting. That is all. 75.46.90.135 08:15, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Well I'm glad that nasty message was not you, despite the efforts of someone to persuade me otherwise I did not see it as your style, so belated thanks for the much nicer message. As to ending the supposed mischaracterisatio" of your site, all you need to do is drop the subject and it will go away. As I say, the only reason I keep the subpage is to save having to go through all the diffs again every time. It's mostly not about your site, it's about your behaviour. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:49, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think we've misunderstood each other (again, ha). The post on your Talk Page about the comment made on the page about your sister (R.I.P.) was also by me, and I was referring to the comment linked to above, not to anything nasty someone might have said. I was being sarcastic because Baccyak4H edited my comment on your Fish Eaters sub-page and wrote, "I am alerting you to this because I know that editing others userpages is generally frowned upon." I didn't know that that was frowned upon (sorry) and was making that point -- and the point that I am not some malicious person -- by pointing out another edit I made to a userpage of yours. Anyway, I am not comfortable "politicizing" my words about your sister and my wishes for your consolation. They were genuine, and I only brought it up to indicate that I innocently edited your userpage and didn't know it was considered a breach of Wiki etiquette.
As to "dropping the subject," the thing is this: I am not "bringing it up." Krnlhker, for ex., is not me; neither was PaulGS, who made the same request in August. Nor was Roberth Edberg and Evrik and others whom I've seen ask for the site to be whitelisted. Me, I've brought the topic up once here, just after the site was blacklisted. I do watch these pages and defend the site once the topic is raised by others because those people are sent to your subpage which contains statements that are not true (see my post above that rebuts the points you make). For someone to be told that my site "doesn't accept Vatican II," for example, is beyond aggravating; it is death for a Catholic site (at least to another Catholic). And to post very clear evidence otherwise (see above) and to have it totally ignored every time is doubly aggravating. Further, knowing that other Wiki media use Wikipedia's blacklist, and that Google may punish sites on that blacklist is extremely worrisome to me. Yeah, it'd be great to know that editors could hash things out on Talk Pages and maybe link to FE if they thought it helpful, but with Dominick around with his Catholic article watchlist, it'd likely be impossible anyway (and I sure as Hell won't get sucked into the "Dealing with Dominick" trap unless it's a matter of defending my work). It's just not that big a deal; my site does fine without it. But what I do wish for is for people to not be told my site is "spam" (though I understand Wikipedia has a particular definition of such) and one that "rejects Vatican II" and so forth, and to not be punished by all Wiki media and by Google for the rest of my life. I'd also like for my RfC against him to be restored so that the proof that he lied (and it was most definitely, without doubt, a lie and not a misunderstanding) about EWTN -- a lie that, in essence, accused EWTN of lying -- could be accessible (I especially would appreciate this since his RfC against me is not deleted). 75.46.90.135 16:45, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is not about editing user subpages, I don't have a problem with that. It's about your actions. Best thing for you to do is walk away, then see what happens in time. One thing's for sure: your agitating for links to your site is a major factor in keeping it on the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:56, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting Naconkantari 19:02, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Is just guy an editor? How can we have editors who have more than 35 words mispelled on one page? 10 in this section alone. Spell check so we can read it.

encyclopediadramatica.com

Now i do know this site has been banned, but banning the mention of it is censorship, which is contradictory to wikipedia's neutral POV. This is even more serious as the site is often critical, and is effectively a spoof, of wikipedia, and to simply block all mention of it does not allow the wikipedia community to consider what could possibly be wrong with wikipedia, which would enable us to remedy the issue. Censorship only works against freedom of speech and expression of ideas, and as such should not be so actively used by admins. So in short, it is against wikipedia's rules to not allow a page on this site.203.173.178.117 04:38, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I just archived a prior request to remove this (about 6 hours ago), you might want to have a look at this. For now consider this Not done. Eagle 101 04:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
As soon as enc-dram becomes a notable website or becomes a reliable source and they stop harassing people on wikipedia I'm sure they will be taken off the blacklist. 71.193.11.169 18:35, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
I think they have a timescale for that, especially the latter part. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:45, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ipetitions.com

Just wondered if it could be removed. I have a link to a petition I made that I want on my user page, just wondering if ipetitions is a serious spam link or something. 68.252.6.166 02:02, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Not done Yeah its serious, see this for more detail. If you want one particular petition whitelisted, you could ask at en:WP:WHITELIST. (I'm assuming that you want this for the english wikipedia). They may refuse your request though. Regards Eagle 101 02:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply


www.ruswar.com

Why is this one black listed? It seems like someone's personal website with notable photos of the afghan war.-66.74.234.167 05:58, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why. I will leave this up to another meta admin to choose whether removing this is a good idea. Eagle 101 14:51, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, let me re-phrase. Can we unblacklist this site? The argument for blacklisting is weak. Posting relevate photos in different language wikipedias in their respective relevate article is not spamming. I think admins need to do some research in the definition of spam if this falls in that category.
Actually no its not, it was done to prevent cross wiki spam, Exactly what this list is for. Again as I said above I'm leaving it up to another admin. Regards Eagle 101 17:38, 28 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, spammed across multiple wikis. Naconkantari 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Once, I decided to do something for people without benefits for myself. I created the website of Afghanistan War Photography and Documentary. Few times I was ready to quit it, but emails I received from people encourage me to go on. I added links to Wikipedia for puplic usage. Have it! People like it. But, it turned out, few terrorist-oriantated individuals designated as "meta-admin" did like my website and what I do on it. Using lame excuse like "spam across wiki" they removed the links from very relevant pages. Despite the whole world struggle agains terrorism they took opposite side by deleting access to anti-terrorist website. At this difficult time in fighting for peace, such activity should be reported to some relevant agencies which may take appropriate steps and maybe resolve what seems to be a problem.

www.tatsoul.com

Please remove this from the spam list. We put one external link not knowing it was against the rules. This will not happen again.

Done - Wow, this and 3 other requests below, I'm willing to take this link off, but if they should get spammed again the link goes right back on. Eagle 101 16:17, 2 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com

I was asked to give a specific page that can be linked from wikipedia, so in my opinion the main page for example can appear in "Animals" article. anyone agree with me?

Strongly against. These photos are not uncommon, are not free and the site has ads. --Jollyroger 11:21, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:03, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
What is loacal whitelisting?
Something this will not get on the English Wikipedia. Too spammy, poorly spelled and copyedited, image copyright issues. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:51, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

anarkismo.net

The fact that pages on this site were used in one incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many other pages (see e.g. Wikipedia:Anarchism, Wikipedia:Platformism and, indeed Wikipedia:Anarkismo.net). 67.180.234.15 06:02, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at en:WP:WHITELIST Eagle 101 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:04, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

nefac.net

The fact that pages on this site were used in one incident of spamming (which looks more like an overzealous user trying to add links she considers relevant to the topic, than spam proper), does not invalidate its use as a source on many pages. The site hosts, among other things, Northeastern Anarchist magazine, a fairly significant and well-respected American anarchist publication. (see also Wikipedia:Especifismo, Wikipedia:Platformism, Wikipedia:NEFAC). 67.180.234.15 06:13, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

One of the purposes of this list is to counter spam, someone spammed a link across wikis, and if it were not for keeping a sharp eye out, we would not have caught that spam. (one link per wiki is very hard to catch). In a few weeks, I might consider removing this (if another meta admin does not before then, as I did the blacklisting I will leave it up to another admin). For now I would suggest requesting certian parts of this site to be whitelisted. The english whitelist can be found at en:WP:WHITELIST Eagle 101 06:11, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Be that as it may, nefac is a respectable site, used as a reference in a number of articles. It strikes me as absurd, and damaging to Wikipedia's ability to function, to blacklist it simply because, on one occasion, it was added inappropriately to a number of articles across wikis. I couldn't find a statement of policy on adding sites to the blacklist; perhaps you could point me to one, because I don't understand by what criteria you are arguing this should stay on the blacklist. 67.180.234.15 08:04, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Why is this link blacklisted exactly? Because once someone used it to spam? It is an essential source for anarchist related articles. Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:22, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ainfos.ca

An anarchist newsgroup, it hasn't been used to spam, and I just had to delete a referenced claim from the w:Jaggi Singh article because Wiki wouldn't let me make any edits to the page until the properly-cited reference was removed. 74.100.73.245 01:37, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why the site is on the blacklist. I suggest requesting specific links whitelisted. w:WP:WHITELIST. I will leave this up to another meta admin to review. Eagle 101 06:01, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, use local whitelisting. Naconkantari 23:05, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Again, this seems like a sppurious reason to de-list yet another anarchist resource. If this was CNN, would it be de-listed? What kind of criteria is being used here? Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:25, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is the alleged spam entry for ainfos.ca:

ca:Antifeixisme diff ca:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 12:59 UTC hr:Antifašizam diff hr:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:14 UTC nl:Antifascisme diff nl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:18 UTC no:Antifascisme diff no:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:20 UTC pl:Antyfaszyzm diff pl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:22 UTC sl:Antifašizem diff sl:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:24 UTC sv:Antifascism diff sv:User:82.131.22.143 2007/02/25 13:28 UTC 

Done - cross wiki spam Eagle 101 15:50, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

This does not look like spam. It looks like the addition of a valuable Canadian anarchist website as an external link in related articles on anti-fascism in different languages. Please de-list. 212.106.68.32 14:36, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I want to make a reference in an article and I can't. It´s not spam, I think like User:212.106.68.32. --81.33.72.150 16:33, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

in.geocities.com/medhahari

One particular link in.geocities.com/medhahari/bharatanatyam/bharatanatyam.html was wrongly blacklisted in Bharatanatyam by some unscrupulous users, and has to be restored. There are numerous arguments (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#Medha_Hari_spam_on_Wikipedia ) for this link to be placed in Bharatanatyam . Tamilselvam 02:48, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

here is why it is blacklisted, I leave this open to arguments, but I would prefer arguments to remove be stated here clearly and concisely. Unless another meta admin wants to remove before arguments are put here, I am going to wait, as it is not my place to try to gauge what appears to be a dispute. Regards. Eagle 101 06:05, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The arguments for removal (please address each of them explicitly):http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Userlogout&returnto=Talk:Spam_blacklist
  1. relevancy: the link has been placed in the relevant category, is highly valuable and extends info on Wiki's article
  2. the linked page has nothing to do with Medha Hari, even though somewhere it contains some inactive links to her pages (as well as dozens of other pages, including Wikipedia!!!)
  3. the link does not contain any promotion of any commercial product
  4. User:A. B.'s argument that a link must be blacklisted as long as a sockpuppet submits it is irrelevant, since this particular link was submitted by numerous non-sockpuppets.
In addition, please explain the why Eagle 101 chose this particular link to be removed while he left some other, obviously irrelevant and commercial links (that's what is real SPAM!), there. I see that there indeed a very strangely selective (abusive) application of Wikipedia's guidelines.Bharathathatha 01:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Relevant data and links:
Multiple admins and editors were involved in dealing with problems and all independently reached the same conclusions:
Cross-wiki spam:
Policies and guidelines violated by various Medha Hari accounts:
The Medha Hari web site is self-published and does not meet the requirements of:
The users complaining about this domains' blacklisting are all new editors using accounts created after numerous sockpuppets were banned in January:
--A. B. (talk) 05:49, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I really doubt this is coming off, it has simply been abused too much, too recently, but I will leave this up to another meta admin to have a look see. Eagle 101 21:37, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, Naconkantari 23:06, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

pages.citebite.com

A request to blacklist pages.citebite.com was placed on 22:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC). Blacklisting was approved on 22:55, 5 March 2007 (UTC).

Citebite archives web pages that are submitted to it. Blacklisting citebite.com has crippled many Thailand-related articles that used the Bangkok Post (one of the two English language newspapers in Thailand) as a reference. The Bangkok Post doesn't use stable URLs for news articles - articles only stay up for about a week before being deleted. Bangkok Post articles are not archived by Archive.org. I and many other editors of Thailand-related articles therefore use Citebite addresses in article citations. Some examples of Thailand-related articles that use citebite include en:Thaksin Shinawatra, en:Saprang Kalayanamitr (which is going up for Good Article review), en:Surayud Chulanont, and en:Bhumibol Adulyadej (which is a featured article). Placing citebite on the blacklist has crippled these articles.

Citebite was a citation tool - it was never used for the purpose of promoting a website or a product (which is the definition for external link spamming). Please remove pages.citebite.com from the blacklist. Patiwat 06:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Patiwat is right. Citebite is a citation and archiving tool, not a "URL-shrinking service" as the original advocate for the blacklisting describes. Although it is indeed preferable to link to the original source when citing in Wikipedia, sometimes that is simply not possible, as Patiwat noted above. A Citebite link is no less legitimate than a link to a commondreams.org copy of an article that is no longer available on the original website. Indeed, it's better because the entire page is preserved, not just the text. The reader sees the article as it first appears, and the original publisher gets unambiguous credit for it through conspicuous logo, layout, etc. Bongbang 12:21, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Done for now, but we are going to have to look into possible abuse of this link. Eagle 101 16:47, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

medrapid.info

Why did this site get blacklisted? There has only been a short description of the medrapid research project in wikipedia. Is wikimedia against research projects accessible for free?

Ok, the admin who originally added this does not seem to be around anymore, but a bit of digging in the archives yeilds this. It looks like the german wikipedia got spammed with that link multiple times by multiple IPs. Minding the logical fallacy above (no we are not against research projects), I will think about taking this off, give me a few days. In the meantime you can show me where it might be useful to have this site? I welcome some comments from any passerby. Thanks. Eagle 101 21:33, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

oseculoprodigioso.blogspot.com

I request that this site be removed from the blacklist. If this is not the appropriate place to request a world-wide removal, please treat this as simply a request to remove the site from the blacklist of the English Wikipedia.

There was an earlier discussion of the site here in Talk:Spam_blacklist here in which other editors felt the site added value to Art articles and should not be blacklisted. I hope I have not screwed anything up by pursuing the issue for a time over in Whitelist Talk instead of here because I didn't really understand the relationship between the two lists. Now I am back here based on a suggestion made in Talk:Spam-whitelist, where there has been a separate discussion of the site here. Taken together, the two discussions are rather lengthy, but to summarize, from my viewpoint:

  • An over-enthuiastic site owner added links to his collection of fine art images, by artist, to several art articles (not sure how many, but maybe 20 or 30 in the English Wikipedia, not an outrageous number IMO)
  • These were correctly identified as spam because of the way they were added
  • However, the site houses a broad and rich collection of artwork images for famous and respected artists, with many works that are unfamiliar (at least to me)
  • The links add value to Wikipedia by greatly extending the number of available examples of each linked artist's work
  • The site has no ads and is not selling anything
  • Several legitimate editors support de-blacklisting the site.

I have absolutely no affiliation with this site or its owner, I am just an admirer of the collection. Thank you for considering this request. --CliffC 20:00, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Endorse this I think I commented in a previous discussion here. Images are good, site is not commercial. I've never added it myself, but have found it on several articles in en (many now have taken it off). 87.194.23.18 18:18, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod from en)Reply
Not done, used for cross-wiki spam. Request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 18:59, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

www.zorpia.com

Hi Eagle, Could you please remove Zorpia.com from the blacklist? We(Zorpia members) are so sad and worried about this decision. We tried to comunicate with you, we posted a lot of comments on almost all your pages. We need some answers. Hope you can help us. Thanks

The following was copied from [[87]] (sorry, there was a little confusion on the correct place to post):

Hi Eagle. I want to ask you specifically about zorpia.com's inclusion in the blacklist. There have been specific allegations that Zorpia is some kind of drug related spam/scam site. In particular I would like to draw your attention to A.B's talk page at [[88]]. Although on the face of it, his comments and links look fair enough, scrutiny reveals an odd methodology. Close inspection of the links given, reveal that many of the search results start from item 700 onwards.

1) By using the same method, we can find that many reputable web sites (including wikipedia) can be shown to have 'lots of references to drugs'

2) A regular search of 'Zorpia' on Google such as [[89]] only reveals that it is what it claims to be, a social networking site. How many pages of the Google search do you have to page through to find references to drugs? I got bored trying.

3) With 5 million member pages at Zorpia, Wikipedia is blocking a worldwide resource of potential quotes and links to images.

4) Currently, searching for 'Zorpia' on Wikipedia (en)[[90]], leads the user to links such as this [[91]] - search result where the number one result is A.B's talk. This means that Wikipedia does a good job of directing people to its own source, which through faulty methodology and assertions/insinuations, makes false claims about a genuine Social Networking Site. I have to stress, that in itself is a serious matter. I have to say, although A.B is obviously not familiar with Zorpia, 5 million other people from around the world (at least) have heard it, and know it to be a genuine site, rather than a drug spamming site.

5) Zorpia has in the past (like many Social Networking Sites) been a victim of drug companies trying to use it as a vehicle to deliver spam. Wikipedia has itself suffered from the same fate (and similar) hence the existence of the blacklist. Wikipedia tries (understandably) to use systems to reduce this and protect its integrity. Zorpia, over several months, has done the same. Primarily, it imposed a daily message limit of 50 messages on its users, virtually making it useless to spammers and scammers. In addition, it employs a full time team to detect and delete accounts associated with these activities.

Having Zorpia on this blacklist, is the equivalent, of Zorpia, MySpace, Friendster, Hi5 etc placing WIKIPEDIA on their own blacklists, because it also has been a vehicle for spamming in the past.

6) Nobody wants to see spam on wikipedia, neither do Zorpia members want to see spam on Zorpia which is spread to wikipedia. However, on this occasion, wikipedia is 'throwing the baby out with the bathwater'. It is going too far to blacklist the whole domain of 'zorpia.com'. I would suggest, that if a link is seen to be referring to drug company etc (e.g www.zorpia.com/drugscam), then that URL be blacklisted, rather than the whole domain. If these types of problems persisted, then I would suggest editors can contact support@zorpia.com. --203.59.139.206 02:05, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I would recommend not removing this from the blacklist. A google search for zorpia and one of the "pharma" (cialis, viagra, etc.) words returns over 100,000 results, most of them automated spam. Until the zorpia community can crack down on spammers, I would not remove this from the blacklist. Naconkantari 06:55, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


Why was Zorpia being blacklisted? I cannot find history and log about why Zorpia was blacklisted at the first place. The blacklisting of zorpia.com didn't seem to have gone through any voting or discussions. Can I see proofs that show someone has used zorpia.com to spam wikipedia?

I know many people have requested to remove zorpia.com from the blacklist in the past. I am not asking about that. I am not asking why zorpia.com is not removed from the blacklist, i am asking why zorpia.com was added to the blacklist. It will be great if someone have an answer for that.

VChang 07:09, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It was blacklisted because it is being used for spam. Please see the results of this Google search. Naconkantari 16:57, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

studentville.it

I would ask to edit from blacklist the url student ville.it please. This is a free website with contenents that are very good and useful (above all latin and italian literature). The contents are made by teachers. In wiki there are others many web sites with advertising (also with popup).

Thanks for the attention.

Not done, as explained one month ago in my talk page. --.anaconda 21:13, 8 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Yes, but now there aren't popup. I don't know where is the problem, on wikipedia there are thousands and thousands of website with banner,according to me the law should be the same for all.

Not done -- as per .anaconda, I plan on getting another user to do automated archiving of sections of this blacklist that are over x days old and have the start-done-end or start-notdone-end tags on them. Eagle 101 01:46, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

bonsaimenorca.com

I’m the director of the bonsai School of Menorca, I was told by my webmaster that bonsaimenorca.com was blacklisted in Wikipedia, it seems that we have something called Cross-wiki , I don’t know who did that, probably one of our students. We are one of the oldest Bonsai Schools in Europe and we don’t want to be in any type of blacklist. I don’t know the way to remove the links and get our domain whitelisted.

Thanks for your attention

libraries.theeuropeanlibrary.org

This has pretty recently been blacklisted. The site itself is highly respectable, and non-commercial; a joint site for the European National Collections of Rare Books, from the British Library on. Each library selects a few items in a standard formula (including images), & maintains it's own site. Many libraries are adding their full catalogues (see the about us page). Funded by the European Union, this replaces a previous gateway. It is likely to become a major scholarly rescource, and is already one of some significance.

The site has been added to many articles on en:Wiki rather crudely - mostly in 2005 by en User:CristianChirita - in fact he started new articles by just cutting and pasting the details table from the site. I have cleaned some of these up. All the new articles were certainly notable - most of the existing featured content, at only 4 items per country, will be so by definition. Many of the treasures from the smaller countries are not available online otherwise - of course the big Western countries have their own bigger sites.

This site should be whitelisted. Any "spamming" must, I think be well-intentioned, and usually valid. Needed links to images are being removed. Please remove from list, Thanks. 87.194.23.18 18:34, 12 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod on en). PS This is a VERY hard page to find. Took me 20 minutes on Wikimedia. Is this deliberate? If not some mention of Spam on the main page would be an improvement.Reply

Please read what spam is. Thanks. Eagle 101 01:48, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Yes, done that (once again). Now please will you explain how that relates to this site? I have only ever seen fewer than ten links to it on en Wiki, which is perfectly legitimate for an official site covering twenty-whatever nations in the EU. How many links does WP have to the Library of Congress? Did you actually read what I wrote above? 87.194.23.18 02:59, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
For as far as I know is the site not blacklisted on meta, but 'theeuropeanlibrary\.org' is blacklisted under en:user:shadowbot on en.wikipedia. As an explanation: the site does not comply with WP:EL (it is not accesible from all browsers, the site does not work in e.g. Opera), and was spammed (the definition of spam on en.wikipedia does not judge the contents of the site, just the way they are added) by several accounts connected to the a.o. en:Dutch Royal Library (which have a conflict of interest). These additions have been cleaned, indeed resulting in only about 10 occurances being left on the site.
When the site works with all browsers the site would indeed be a good and notable site, and would comply when used as a reference, i.e. when not being spammed to external links sections, or added by users with a conflict of interest. Hope this explains. --Beetstra 15:03, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
To make editing here even less accessible, the edit link at right is not coordinated with this section of text: open "edit" two sections down! so, how could blacklisting be defended for the shared site of the EU's national libraries? The blacklisting process is whimsical, open to any "administrator" who elects to add a site, which is then methodically deleted throughout Wikipedia by followers who have not reviewed the material. A serious abuse, among many. 162.84.242.92 01:29, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (User:Wetman).Reply
Beetstra, thanks, that is helpful. i will follow up on en 87.194.23.18 04:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Re Wetman: The blacklisting was performed on en.wikipedia only after discussion with several people, and we all have this site on our monitor now. We are not happy with this site being blackisted, but the current situation (spamming under a conflict of interest) needed to be addressed. I have explained the reason why it was blacklisted and have repeatedly tried to explain the situation to the accounts in question. Only links were removed that were added by the spammers (which ALL have a conflict of interest). I did not even remove all of their links, I removed the links that were added by them and only had a tangential link to the subject they were added to, and/or were they were added to the external link sections. --Beetstra 09:45, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I must say I first became aware of the issue when I could not edit a page on an MS (I've now forgotten which) without removing the link to the only available picture of that MS. My recollection is that this had been added in 2005, but I might be wrong. 87.194.23.18 02:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would like to add, the first time I encountered the link, I actually looked where it went. That stalled my browser (Opera), which is not supported by the site (I could not even use my back-button to get back to the wikipedia), see here. The addition was in the external link section, where en:WP:EL fully applies (though I would consider it also suitable for external links in the text, and even in the references), and that guideline states that sites should accessible for all/most browsers. In that light we could remove all external links to this site (yesterday I did have the same trouble with the homepage of theeuropeanlibrary). The site is new, and it might become a good information site, but for now, it does not comply with wikipedia rules (and it gets spammed under a COI). I am sorry. --Beetstra 10:42, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

isbn-check.com + books-by-isbn.com + isbn-check.de

These are not spam links, they have been added by WP editors to their user pages and to booksouces. They are useful tools, please remove from spam list. 213.48.182.7

Not done, these sites contain amazon affiliate links. Naconkantari 16:45, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'd like to ask that the removal be reconsidered. The problem is that, without this site, we can't offer any ISBN-checking facility to our readers on the Special:Booksources page of the English Wikipedia. The site can also be used to check International Standard Serial Numbers, and is the only known way of doing that, since www.issn.org will no longer check these numbers without a paid subscription.

It is also used by the group of ISBN-fixers on the English Wikipedia when debugging invalid ISBNs. The operator of the site, Tomas Schild, has an account on English WP at en:User:Tschild, and at our request he added the ISBN-13 checking capability. I have opened a discussion among the ISBN-fixers on en:User_talk:Rich Farmbrough#Spam blacklist. The money earned by Schild's site is surely trivial compared to the value he provides to Wikipedia readers and editors. You only open his link (from Special:Booksources) if you are doing ISBN-checking, so you probably are already having trouble and are trying to debug it. If there were a site that would provide the checking without any Amazon affiliate tie-in, we could certainly change, but I'm not aware of any. Even meta.wikimedia.org's version of Special:Booksources still uses this link. Rich Farmbrough's robot, SmackBot, can check ISBNs but it does so using a large set of regular expressions that can only be run by a client-side program. EdJohnston 01:57, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

We link to Amazon, who take a much larger percentage of profit (i.e. all of it) than Schild. We don't have a prohibition against commercial sites. Rich Farmbrough 19:30 17 March 2007 (GMT).
My mistake, I tried to add the above isbn.org link to my user page [92], and I got a link-blocked as spam message. Apparently what is being blocked is my pre-existing link to isbn-check.com, which has been on there since 17 February 2007. I looked at isbn-check.com, and I could not find the commercialization that Naconkantari mentioned. --Bejnar 22:59, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


touregypt.net

If this is heavily cross-linked, it's because it contains an extremely comprehensive resource (admittedly tertiary) on Egyptian history. I have never seen it linked for any purpose other than to provide a reference, certainly not for commercial purposes. There— has not, as far as I know, been a single agent responsible for all the linking; links to it get added as a matter of course for no other reason than that it's a top Google result for many searches on Ancient Egyptian history. See [93] where it's the second non-Wikipedia result. Please remove it from the list. Csernica 04:25, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I too would like to speak up for this website, in spite of its villas-for-rent spammy title. For instance, Christ Pantocrator linked to a useful brief, sensible layman's article on the famous icon from St. Catherine's Monastery in the Sinai. but whenever a long list of Wikipedia articles on sensible subjects are cross-linked to a website, it might be a hint to even an Administrator that across-the-board deletions might not be in the best interests of the average Wikipedia reader without access to JSTOR etc. Would removing it from the blacklist— how is that arrived at anyway?— mean that the deleter will remark "Be my guest"— as an administrator sneered on my Talkpage— when asked who will do the restoring legwork? (User:Wetman).
Mark me as a three on support of this website. I have used pages from it as a reference on Wikipedia articles, and it has some good, well referenced, scholarly information on a wealth of eqyptian history, culture, and geography. Wikipedia User:KyraVixen, probably quite well meaningly, removed the reference from the article in question thinking it was spam. It wasn't spam, it was a vital reference to the article. Could we please remove this site from the blacklist so I can restore the reference? That would be great --209.42.203.87 08:41, 16 March 2007 (UTC) (Wikipedia User:Jayron32)Reply
Dear Administrator, I must urge you to allow all touregypt.net linked web sites to remain on Wikipedia and to lift the ban on this web page now. The touregypt.net web site provides a ready reference for pictures and information on Ancient Egyptian pharaohs that one just cannot access elsewhere in great detail. For instance, the Wikipedia articles on pharaohs Shepseskaf and Ramesses IV were greatly improved by the ready access to related touregypt.net articles which gave both 1) images of statues or pyramids/tombs of these kings as well as 2)specific and reliable information on their achievements while in power and 3)cited the author's sources for his information at the bottom of his touregypt.net page. With the touregypt.net links now removed, the Wikipedia articles on these kings--and many other innumerable personalities of Ancient Egypt--have been greatly devalued in scope and quality; reliable information on these ancient people are limited to only a small select group of scholars. I thought this the goal of Wikipedia was to make information accessible to everyone and hope I was not misinformed. Please note that the owner of the touregypt.net site, Jimmy Dunn, did not created his web pages on Ancient Egypt to push spam on visitors or to use them as a revenue generator. If he did so, Google would remove his web sites from their Top 10 list of Internet searches immediately since Google has actively worked to reduce the presence of spammers on their search engine and increase the quality of their searches. Here is Google's list of searches for king Shepseskaf of the 4th dynasty of Egypt: [94]. As you can see, the touregypt.net article on Shepseskaf and his pyramid is the very first story that Google features. If it is good enough for Google, it should be good for Wikipedia too--as a general resource for Wikipedia subscribers. So, please remove this unfathomable ban on touregypt.net and let people like me who care about Egyptology to easily access its resources on Wikipedia. From a loyal Wikipedia subscriber. Thank You. Leoboudv 10:53, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I would agree; the gallery of images of Icons from St Catherines's Sinai contains far more pictures of this extremely importany collection than Commons & all other sources put together.

Johnbod from en 87.194.23.18 12:12, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I agree wholeheartedly. I do not know how exactly this site got on the blacklist, perhaps the fact that it is partially touristic, however it contains a fine tertiary source which is most of the time better than wikipedia's articles! This site is not just an external link, it is a source for a great many of our articles, and by removing it, one FA, Ahmose I, has actually lost a number of citations for an entire paragraph. Touregypt is not just good, it is vital. Thanatosimii 14:14, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The reason the site got added? its a site designed to sell tourism related stuff. New! Click Here For Tour Egypt Auctions and Click here to request best competitive Egypt travel rates from multiple, screened travel companies. point to the nature of the site. it is there to sell tourism not as a information source. those quotes were lifted straight from the main page. 4.160.213.146 14:37, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
However none of that material is linked to anywhere in wikipedia. Unless someone can come up with so much as one instance of the actuall commercial aspect of Touregypt being spammed, why on earth is a source which is more comprehensive and better than many wikipedia articles being removed, especially when it is not used as a link, it is used as a citation in featured articles no less!

Remove from blacklist. -- 62.220.237.57 15:31, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove I was puzzled to see that a link to this website on my talk page was altered, when that link was added by Leoboudv, whom I know is an established user on the English Wikipedia, & has not history of spamming. Doesn't the definition of spam include the fact that it is generated by one person or groups of persons? And from the history of the edits in question, I see that many of the links that were altered were added by a number of different users. If it is not, then the rules are flawed & need to be fixed. Further, spam links seem to be nominated on the basis on an opaque method: discussion on a specific IRC channel -- & many Wikipedians either do not have access to IRC or choose not to use it because it is not an official part of any Wikipemedia project. I am against spam, but listing a site on the block list, then requiring Wikipedians to argue for its removal subverts the core idea of Wikipedia -- we discuss things. -- Llywrch 16:47, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I randomly examined a on touregypt less than half the page text contains relevant material. the other half is ad's and navigation. Betacommand 18:19, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
And you will probably find that less than one of those spammy pages has ever been linked on wikipedia. Thanatosimii
I just looked at their page on ancient Egypt .net/ancientegypt/ to be exact I copied the whole pages content to my sandbox that page is 5731 characters of text. I removed the "article" about ancient Egypt what I was left with was 2894 characters. that means that only 49.50270459% of the page contained the relevant material the rest ~50.5% is advertising and navigation. 4.160.213.146 19:29, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So what? The fact remains that 49% is perfectly legit. Spam must be 100% advertisment. 100%. If we do not abide by that rule, we lob out hundreds of vital sources. This blacklist has just quite literally made all the major Ancient Egypt pages lose key sources. Not just links that we can or cannot do without, but sources. This is doomed to go down about as bad as the fiasco. Thanatosimii
No, it doesn't need to be 100% ads. Thats ridiculous. JoeSmack 04:37, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It absolutely does. If the page is by nature commercial, however hosts things by nature informational, the informational pages need to be permitted. What's ridiculous is blocking a site based on some arbatrary (and misleading) word count percentage. Thanatosimii 00:43, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

The fact remains that this is a useful web site with many helpful articles. I think that allowing it as a link would benefit Wikipedia more than it can possibly harm it.--Runcorn 19:42, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

To Betacommand, I again request that you remove touregypt.net from your blacklist. Those ads which you criticise are merely links posted at the top or bottom of its web stories which are easy to ignore and are geared mostly for finding travel companies to visit Egypt--not the aggressive pop up ads that one encounters on other sites. Google has no problem with touregypt.net sites and thinks it enhances their search engine results which is why they are listed in their Top 10 or Top 20 of search results. Why can't Wikipedia? I own* Bill Manley's 1996 book The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt and can tell you it too follows Tour Egypt's approach by giving out relevant material and then publishing its references at the end of the book. Do you want to close off this invaluable source of information on all the many personalities of Ancient Egypt such as Ramesses IV and Shepseskaf just because you dislike the fact that it gives out a few links of a commercial nature. How does this enhance our understanding of Ancient Egypt? If you follow this strict interpretation of touregypt.net, we might as well remove the Wikipedia posts on obscure but important kings such as Shepseskaf. At present, the information on Wikipedia for him is laughable--not one photo and minimal text. There are no images for hsi astatues on WikiCommons. And this is just one of many examples. The advantage of using touregypt.net would benefit Wikipedia more than harm it. In February, I re-wrote much of the article on Ramesses IV and gave specific quote citations from AJ Peden's biography on this king but I had to visit my University to access the book since public libraries would never carry it. Why? Because the TourEgypt article on him alerted me about his reign. How many Wikipedia contributors would have their interest perked enough on a subject to perform research in a library if you simply remove the touregypt.net reference articles on them? Have you seen Touregypt.net's excellent article on king Shepseskaf on Google? The information posted here CANNOT be accessed anywhere else on the Net. Frankly, touregypt.net is a useful web site and point of reference; it helps Wikipedia more than any harm it might cause. If Google approves them, it should be kosher for the rest of us too. Pls remove the blacklist on touregypt.net for everyone's benefit. It does not fit the profile of a spammer. Regards Leoboudv 20:28, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove from the blacklist, please. I've linked to Touregypt articles from several WP articles and this ban practically made those WP articles impossible to update. That ad on the top of the touregypt site is so insignificant I haven't even noticed it until now. (I guess after a few years spent online, everyone's brain gets used to ignore pictures that are about the size of a banner ad.) Alensha 01:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • keep Extensive spamming on articles related to Egyptian histiory.
You people have yet to actually provide one instance wherein touregypt is linked to wikipedia when the page in question is not being used as a citation. Therefore it cannot by definition constitute spamming.
Just because its a ref doesnt mean its not spam. I could link to walmart and use that as a ref. Its still spam. this is a simple case of a company using small amounts of info embedded in lots of ads to promote its self and sell products. Betacommand 03:07, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Your argument does not make sense. You apparently argue that a link to this site is spam no matter who adds the link -- whether a veteran editor who can be assumed in good faith to know what she or he is doing, or a Search Engine Optimizer/spammer -- only because of its content. Spam is determined primarily by its volume (which add to the load & cost of mailservers -- the reason sysadmins despite spam), whether or not th econtent could be plausibly desired, & only incidentally by the quality of the material sent or linked to. For example, if I mail 10,000 people with a copy of my favorite novel to each, it is considered spam because of the volume & that few would be expected to want an unsolicited copy of it -- whether my favorite novel is War and Peace or Battlefield Earth is not relevant. In this case, links to the touregypt.net website has been added responsibly & at the wishes of various established Wikipedians (which make it solicited); quality of the site is clearly a secondary issue -- & irrelevant. I can only wonder if this listing is based solely on one person's dislike for the website; this is simply a content dispute & putting this webiste on the spamlist could be considered an abuse of Wikipedia guidelines. -- Llywrch 03:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
de indent you have your priories mixed up the quality of the site comes before who adds the link. Just because Im an ause established user on en.wiki I could slowly over time add links to FooForSale.com because it has reviews for an item that doesnt mean that those links are not spam, they are spam either way. the quality of the site determines the suitability of the site, not whoever adds the link. its obvious that this site was designed to sell products over half of the page for an article is SPAM , just because a site has a few lines of info burred in ads doesnt mean that you can link to it. the evidence shows that this is a spam site 50> of the page is ads. how is this not spam? Betacommand 04:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is your ONE page sample you keep going on about! The particular page that brought me here is a gallery with 5 screens down of images of icons, with a little banner at the top you have to click to go to ads (touregypt.net/featurestories/catherines2a.htm). That's the one page page sample I'm using, so I can confidently say your conclusions are completely wrong.

87.194.23.18 04:31, 17 March 2007 (UTC) (Johnbod on en)Reply

Wow Betacommand, you have just accused several en.wikipedia editors of being spammers, including Thanatosimii & Leoboudv (both of whom are significant contributors to the WikiProject ancient Egypt), & Wetman (who made many valuable contributions to a wide variety of Wikipedia articles over at least three years). By your argument, these established editors would, without a second thought, trade in their reputations in order to "slowly over time add links" to a website that has too many ads for your taste. I find it hard not to read your words as anything but an insult to them & their generous efforts. -- Llywrch 05:30, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Betacommand, your argument that this is a slow spam is refuted not only by the facts about 45 of the linsk come from Talk pages (wow, a real clever spammer there), but that on one of those talk pages, en:Talk:Afrocentrism Archive3, it is linked to by opposite sides in a flame war. Need I write any more, or should I research every one of these almost 300 links to show that they were added in good faith? -- Llywrch 02:38, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
what the fuck do I have to say I am not questioning the intent of the users, I am questioning the quality of a site designed to sell products, and how that site is reaping profit from us. and how that the material that is used from there could be gained from a far better source, I AM NOT QUESTIONING THE USER I AM QUESTIONING THE QUALITY OF A SITE DESIGNED TO SELL A PRODUCT. Betacommand 02:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I'm passionate about my side of the argument too, Betacommand, but I have been able to make my point quite well without once dropping an f-bomb. I believe en:WP:CIVIL applies over here too, so consider yourself warned. I guess you aren't very adept with words, because you did say that they were spammers in your comment above. And if you are questioning the "quality of a site" (if that is what you mean), then this is a content issue & we should be discussing this elsewhere -- like back on en. -- Llywrch 07:27, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
remove from blacklist Dear Betacommand, have you ever once read the touregypt.net article on king Shepseskaf here? Just google the name 'Shepseskaf'; he is the first story you will find online on Google! Do you notice the amount of detail about this Egyptian ruler's statues and pyramid or the fact that Shepseskaf was the son of king Menkaure or Mycerinus, the builder of the third and last great Pyramid of Giza. There is nothing similiar out there on the Internet which brings this king--let alone the many hundres of other ordinary Ancient Egyptian characters--to life. The spam which you mention here is only a few links to a travel company as one would expect on this site. Is this a big deal? If I want to visit Egypt, I can and will contact my own local travel company in Vancouver, Canada, where I live rather than going through someone I don't know on touregypt. You have criticised Wikipedia's own editors such as thanatosimi for requesting that certain touregypt links be retained but have you considered the fact that by removing and blacklisting every single touregypt.net site, you removed critical references for Thanatosimi's article on king Ahmose, the founder of Egypt's 18th dynasty, which was so good that it was Proofread and then featured as the main Wikipedia front page story earlier one day this year. While I am a mere Wikipedia contributor, Thanatosimi is one of Wikipedia's top on-line editors on Egyptology who has removed numerous vandalism and made important contributions on various Egyptian pharaohs including Ahmose, and Amenhotep I. Did you consult with Wikipedia's expert editors on Egyptology before you decided to remove all on-line stories created by Touregypt.net? What you have done here is a "reverse onus"--you banned all touregypt.net linked sites without prior warning and then placed the onus on the rest of us in the Wikipedia Egyptological community to argue for the restoration of TourEgypt. This process is unfair and plain wrong. Did you consider the fact that Tour Egypt.net has had CLOSE TIES to the Egyptian government. While it is a private company, it was contracted by the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and the Egyptian Tourist Authority to operate as their official web site for several years at the start of the 21st Century. (see this important link titled 'A Labor of Love' by Jimmy Dunn: [[95]]) My point here is that if the official Egyptian government has no difficulties dealing with TourEgypt.net, neither should Wikipedia. I request again, please remove touregypt.net from the blacklist. Thank You. Leoboudv 06:42, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

keep - per:

  1. That a site is blacklisted, just means that you cannot add the deeplink, you can still use it as a reference. (I can still add 'Jennifer Couzin, Science, 2007, vol 315, issue 5818, p. 1518-1519', and everybody can verify it, the deeplink is a nice extra which provides a service to the readers of a non-paper encyclopedia).
  2. That a site is official does not mean it can not be spammed.
  3. If multiple editors add only links to multpiple articles across multiple wikis, it is spammed and that is a reason to meta-blacklist.
  4. The site contains ~50% advertisement, and primarily exists to sell Egypt.
  5. I am not sure the site passes en:WP:A (en:WP:OR?)
  6. A lot of the information is also available elsewhere (from primary, secondary sources).

See you around. --Beetstra 12:17, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove - I cannot see why this site is blacklisted - it hasn't been spamming en.wikipedia, many of the articles reference it explicitly as it has information that is not easily replaced. Cheers 86.147.114.128 15:55, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also – where is the record of this site being nominated for blacklisting? 86.147.114.128 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
There isn't one. Suggesting that a page may be spam is one thing, but what's really got Llywrch, Leoboudv, and myself irate is the fact that an administrator on IRC talked it over there without any realy wiki-discussion whatosever, and somehow the burden of proof falls on us to argue that it isn't spam. Thanatosimii
This site seems to have been blocked for one reason - spamming wikipedia (which it wasn't), and now is not unblocked for another. THis strikes me as someone making a mistake and then not being able admit they were wrong. So much for this being a community. 86.147.114.128 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Keep - far too much of this is advertisements (and i use adblock). im willing to bet a lot of this stuff is replaceable with whatever sources they used to accrue this information. JoeSmack 16:18, 17 March 2007 (UTC) P.S. Pleeeease stop talking about how golden-untouchable-millions-awesome the information is and start talking about the spam/ads on the website, which is the one of the actual reasons the site was blacklisted in the firstplace. JoeSmack 16:23, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Writing that "far too much of this" is a subjective opinion. So far, no one has explained why "50%" advertising (as measured in bytes, I assume from the discussion above) is unacceptible. If I use a general periodical or newspaper, at least 50% of its content (measured in page space) will be advertisements -- yet a link to Time, Newsweek, etc. is not considered "spam". This is all boiling down to a content dispute, & spam-blocking should not be used to resolve those kinds of disputes. (Not to mention post facto actions.) -- Llywrch 21:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

KEEP IT BLACKLISTED The site is very obviously primarily aimed at tourism. Its intentions are commercial not information. The information is only there to facilitate sales. There are far better sites concerning the same information elsewhere on the Internet that are genuinely aimed at being informative rather than commercial. --XX7 22:35, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Patantly false... you clearly haven't read the pages in question... Thanatosimii 23:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove Of course one of the site's goals is to promote tourism to Egypt. Why do you think it was contracted by the Egyptian Ministry of Tourism and the Egyptian Tourist Authority to operate their web sites? If it was a fly by night company, the Egyptians would never have turned to TourEgypt.net in the first place. 24.87.136.31 22:48, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

? I am sorry, could you clarify this to me. As I read this now, do you really suggest that the site gets removed from the blacklist because it is a promotional site for tourism in Egypt? --Beetstra 01:10, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok plain and simple the point of the site is advertising and a tourism, Just because they added a little information on the history of egypt doesnt mean that is negates the point of the site, I dont link to bestbuy.com for a review of a movie I use a site that is not designed to have the user profit from the information that is posted. their are sites that make millions of dollars of wikipeda and I know these links generate money for the tourist booking site touregypt.net.
Crosspost from my talk, :

I have checked the web site. I was surprised at how it did not match the descriptions of it given here. There are several options with web sites (1) purely commercial, (2) commercial, but supplying some useful information that IS available elsewhere, (3) commercial but supplying some useful information that is NOT available elsewhere, (4) non commercial that supplies useful information. The first two should be blacklisted. The last two shouldn't. This web site comes under (2). It is primarily commercial, and contains useful information, but nothing that is not available elsewhere. I challenge anyone to point out something on this web site that is not better available elsewhere. If they can I will withdraw my criticism. If I can provide better information elsewhere they should withdraw their support for the web site. --XX7 11:49, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Check out this one : http://www.ancient-egypt.org/ It is highly informative, unlike the touregypt.net web site, which is shallow in detail and primarily commercial. So if you genuinely do want to add a useful web site to Ancient Egypt pages you can use http://www.ancient-egypt.org/ instead. --XX7 12:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Since betacommand and Eagle_101 are away, I did some research. I don't have a lot to go on, but this is what I have:
As you all can see, there are 7 additions by 24.87.136.31 in a period of 7 minutes (I notice that it has been on shadowbots revert list, unfortunately when edits get reverted by shadowbot they do not get recorded by stats_bot). That is (at least under the English wikipedia definition, possibly others as well) spam ("Adding external links to an article or user page for the purpose of promoting a website or a product is not allowed, and is considered to be spam. Although the specific links may be allowed under some circumstances, repeatedly adding links will in most cases result in all of them being removed."). That is probably what triggered some users to research the site.
Now we have established that the site got spammed on the en wikipedia, we go to examining the actual contents of the site. When we see the site, we note that about 50% of the site is advertisement and te main target of the site is to sell Egypt. As such, it clearly fails en:WP:EL (if I understood correctly, on 54 out of 63 pages the site was used as a link in the external links section, not as a reference "Out of 63 articles that I have removed *.touregypt.net links from, only 9 of such articles had references"). As a reference it may have been OK, but I doubt it will pass en:WP:A. Though the site cites some references, most statements go unreferenced. For most of that data I believe that the data can also be found in other documents (those which touregypt fails to cite, or in the citations at the bottom, see again "Out of 63 articles that I have removed *.touregypt.net links from, only 9 of such articles had references, and those references have been replaced"). Moreover, again, you don't have to provide the link to cite a document, see my keep post, above.
Hope this explains at least part of the issue. --Beetstra 12:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Thanks for adding that Beetstra, but why did it take someone who knew the answer two days to post the information here? I'm guessing Betacommand could have shared that information at any time -- instead he just grew more hostile & ranted on about its contents; as I & others have stated above, content is not relevant here. As for Eagle 101, I guess she/he hasn't posted here so to remain neutral in this debate. Further, the number of links to this website is not 63 -- it is close to 300, of which 45 were on Talk pages both archived & active. (I was alerted to this issue because a link that was altered was on my own Talk page.) I determined these numbers -- 300 total, 45 talk pages -- after an examination of KyraVixen's edit history; I counted all of the edits so marked in the comment fields.
I have since learned that there is a way around this global spamblock that could satisfy the editors in question -- at least for the moment: en: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. However, one otherwise uninvolved Admin who tried to whitelist one specific link to touregypt.net had his act immediately reverted by Betacommand with the peculiar argument that "because it's on the meta blacklist, we cannot whitelist it on en". Betacommand's obsession & inflexibility with enforcing this block, I believe, has now become the best argument now for unblocking ths site: he refuses to even allow common-sense exceptions. What real harm is done by unblocking this site, & taking the discussion back to en where its value can be discussed? -- Llywrch 18:28, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Betacommand is not active on wikipedia this weekend, he is having a board meeting with the mediawiki group. Also Eagle_101 has not been very active on 'pedia this weekend, he was also away.
The numbers here are from KyraVixen, who went through 63 of her edits, and counted. If it is indeed less than 15% references, then it is not a lot. It were indeed more links, 250 as you guess, 15% of that would be 40 pages, if it propagates similar. I believe she is still looking for alternatives.
I am afraid my arguments against whitelisting on en will be the same as against removal from the blacklist here. But that argument can maybe be brought to the en.wikipedia, indeed. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 19:13, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Beetstra, I just took a look at the history of that anon editor en:User:24.87.136.31, & found no evidence that she/he is a spammer. Yes, that person added 7 lines to touregypt.net in a brief burst of time, but she/he was welcomed to Wikipedia on 29 November 2006 by Humus Sapiens, & has since made many constructive edits like the cumulative effect of these three on 10 March. Right now this anon editor is making a number of links to articles in JSTOR -- a resource I for one do not have access to. I'm beginning to wonder if there ever was a spammer adding any of these links, or if someone just failed to properly investigate the matter before acting. -- Llywrch 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
First of all, the pages are only about 10-20% advertisments by actual percentage of the screen. Tallying up the percenteges based on byte count is silly, because the banner ads are small and just that – banners! Internet readers regularly just ignore them. It cannot be argued that a link to a page with a lot of banner ads, if the main page in question is vitally related to the wikipedia article, is being added for the sake of advertisments. Secondly, all the touregypt pages function as references. Perhaps this is against the manual of style, however when pages are still small and we haven't taken the time to give them inline citations, we've tended to place the sources in a catagory called "external links". They're still all references, 100% of them. This is getting absurd. Spamming is always done in bad faith, in an intent to sell things. If three established editors object this vehemently to calling this spam, and if an article went through a featured article nomination with said links in it, it's usually a good hint that it's not spam. Moreover, although I do believe that a user is more than the sum of his edit counts, the three of us did not come to wikipedia and write somthing on the the order of 25% of the text on Ancient Egypt here so that we could have our work belittled and be accused of unethical marketing practices! Thanatosimii 21:00, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Remove, see http://www.touregypt.net/featurestories/treaty.htm for example. It's a solid article which was linked from en:treaty because it has images of the treaty of kadesh. A solid external resource and clearly compliant with the sort of site we link to. I am tremendously disappointed in the hostile mentality that has led some people to see this as worthy of a universal sitewide ban. Night Gyr 19:41, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Arbitrary section break

A REPLY for Beetstra and one from Betacommand: For Beetstra. The identity of User 24.87.136.31 is no mystery to those who are members of the Wikipedia Egyptological community. It is me, Leoboudv from Canada. When I access Wikipedia on my computer, I sometimes forget to 'sign in' and so whatever contributions which I make is noted with this log in number instead of Leoboudv. Later, I may remember to register in and therefore my Leoboudv name is preserved. I did this yesterday unintentionally on pharaoh Shepseskaf when I gave more details and academic citations on this pharaoh as you can see here[96] As for Betacommand, Here is his more civil reply to my post as noted from his talk page. I included it here since he suggests we deal with this issue on m:Spam and because he has refused to reply on the WikiMedia discussion for 2 days now. Here is my final conversation with him after he swore at me.

"Dear Betacommand, I may be angry but I never swore at anyone on the discussion site. Am I wrong or are you supposed to respect people's views here? The real problem is that you ARBITRARILY removed a site without prior discussion or made any attempt to hear the views of your own Wikipedia editors (or contributors) who care about ancient Egypt. I include this excerpt from the WikiMedia discussion[5]:

"Also – where is the record of this [TourEgypt.net] site being nominated for blacklisting? 86.147.114.128 16:01, 17 March 2007 (UTC) There isn't one. Suggesting that a page may be spam is one thing, but what's really got Llywrch, Leoboudv, and myself irate is the fact that an administrator on IRC talked it over there without any realy wiki-discussion whatosever, and somehow the burden of proof falls on us to argue that it isn't spam. Thanatosimii This site seems to have been blocked for one reason - spamming wikipedia (which it wasn't), and now is not unblocked for another. THis strikes me as someone making a mistake and then not being able admit they were wrong. So much for this being a community. 86.147.114.128 22:16, 17 March 2007 (UTC)"

What kind of a community is Wikipedia if you--or someone else--can basically go behind the backs of Wikipedia's own registered Egyptology editors and delete a major resource like TourEgypt.net. This smacks of plain elitism--the kind you expect at Brittanica, not at open Wikipedia where you discuss things OPENLY before making a final decision! You placed the onus on the rest of the Wikipedia Egyptology community to advocate for for the continued use of TourEgypt which is just PLAIN WRONG. I'm happy that you are close to Mr. Wales and happy you are part of the Wikipedia board. But please don't put bans on certain web sites without consulting your own registered Wikipedia editors! TourEgypt has some ads but 1)they are not full or even part time spammers at all and 2) they have lots of valuable information that one cannot access anywhere else. Did you check Wikipedia's current article on Shepseskaf and the one by the touregypt.net linked article! The difference is night and day; TourEgypt has pictures, graphs and a clear reliabe Bibliography. Here is the link--before it was removed.[6]

The Touregypt link is clearly placed in the External links section of the article--as it should be, not hidden somewhere in the article on Shepseskaf. Basically all I'm saying is that the information on the TourEgypt site increases people's interest in Egypt's great past--on its pharaohs, pyramids, temples, mummies, etc and helps prod people to do more research and contribution into Wikipedia's articles on these topics. Is that wrong. As long as the TourEgypt articles are placed in the External links section, it should be kosher. I've checked the TourEgypt articles and their information is basically trustworthy unlike some articles on Wikipedia which I have had to competely rewrite and then give the footnotes. Can you please reconsider the ban on TourEgypt because you have just angered a lot of people with this totally out of the blue decision; the fact you refuse to admit that maybe the decision making process here contains serious flaws only aggravates the Wikipedia community (no pun intended!) further. Thank You." Leoboudv 11:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Please take this to m:SPAM instead of trying to fork the discussion. I am and shall always remain civil. times arise when strong language is needed to get a point across. please see XX7's comment that clearly shows the reasons. it falls under his #2. I am not dropping names, I was getting bitched at for not responding to said users complaints, I stated my reason for the lag in response time. Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 12:35, 18 March 2007 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Betacommand"

Now, I can understand his frustration but I wish Betacommand dealt with the heart of the matter--the secretive way with which touregypt.net was suddenly banned without any prior discussion by a Wikipedia board whom few people know of. I have clicked on the link for the W-spam source but don't know what one is supposed to do. Do you know, Beetstra, know what the link is about other than providing a catalogue of all the banned web sites on Wikipedia? Leoboudv 21:24, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

First of all, I totally disagree with that this link should be in the external links section, this site certainly does not belong in external links sections. Per en:WP:EL "If the site or page to which you want to link includes information that is not yet a part of the article, consider using it as a source first." External links are not sources. External links are things that cannot be included in the article. Putting it in the external links sections because you are going to use it as a reference is also not a good excuse, the link is then in the external links section .. waiting while it should not be there. Like it or not, this site is primarily meant as an advertisement, to sell trips to Egypt (sorry for my earlier typo, 'selling Egypt' was not what I meant) and therefore fails WP:EL, I, and apparently others as well think it contains objectable amounts of advertisement (and yes, that is a personal meaning). But a large part of the site is advertisement, on the pages that is linked to the advertisement is lower, but still there is quite a lot.
Now lets consider if it could be a good reference for inline citations. My primary assertion is that this is not really the case (but indeed, I am not an egyptologist). As I see it (using my education as a scientist), I would say, the site collects a lot of material, but does not correctly cite where it is from. Example from [http ://www dot touregypt dot net/featurestories/giza.htm this page about Giza]:
According to a treatise on the geology of the pyramid plateau by Thomas Aigner, it is part of the Middle Eocene Mokattam Formation, which dips slightly southeast, comprising limestone and dolomites.

What treatise are we talking about, something written by Thomas Aigner .. now on the page are quite some resources, but none is from Thomas Aigner. Or, turning it around, the first resource is by Nicholas Reeves, but I cannot find where in the text that resource is used. Do egyptologists have a total different style of referencing texts? Furthermore, the text contains typing and grammar mistakes (The sentence I quote is not grammatically correct, I think it should read "According to a treatise by Thomas Aigner on the geology of the pyramid plateau is this plateau part of the Middle Eocene Mokattam Formation, which dips slightly southeast and which is comprised out of limestone and dolomites" and even now it is not completely correct, probably the sentence should be split in two). All of that gives me the concern, that the text is not checked by independent authorities, which gives me a further concern that there might be factual errors/mistakes in the text as well (but that is a concern). The fact that the site is a part of a tourism site (which is not meant to be double checked, it is meant to read easy and to give people a background) does not help its credibility. Moreover, KyraVixen, who is AFAIK also not an egyptologist, found for the 9 references she helped to replace 9 replacements. This suggests that this is not a necessery source, and that egyptologists can do better than use this as a source. But I can be mistaken.

May I ask to show us why this site does not fail en:WP:A. Please do not again come up with a en:Google test, please show us credible, third party sources that also use this site as a source (e.g. links from http://www.ancient-egypt.org/ to touregypt.net, but other recognised sites will do as well). When those references are provided I am sure that a meta-admin will reconsider this link. It for sure works better than assuming bad faith, or tangential reasons like 'the reference here was there when this article was featured article' (the FA - assignment is based on the whole page, not on a couple of references to this site which may have been overlooked ..) or 'it contains good pictures' (pictures can be uploaded). Hope to hear soon from you. Thank you. --Beetstra 23:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear Beestra, Thank You for your reply. I posted the reply because Betacommand has not replied on this site--I don't know the reason. Perhaps he is busy with work or has chosen not to make a response to the objections listed above but his short comments deserves a viewing here. At any rate, I will not discuss the matter with him on his talk page anymore as I noted. All my responses will be included here. You rightly ask about the reasons why TourEgypt fails to give specific footnotes on claims or comments in their articles but this is not at all uncommon in Egyptology. This is a TourEgypt article on king Shepseskaf; no footnotes are given for the writers claims but 5 mainstream Egyptian books on this shortlived king are given in the bibliography sec. (touregypt.net/featurestories/shepseskaf.htm) Some comments are made about the measurements of his pyramid and pictures of his statues and mastaba tomb are included.

In contrast, please look at Bill Manley's reliable 1996 book titled 'The Penguin Historical Atlas of Ancient Egypt.' I quote Manley's words here: "Seti I and Ramesses II both conducted campaigns against the people of Tjehenu (a Libyan tribe) in the Western Desert. However, by the end of the 19th Dynasty, the settlement in Egypt of members of new tribes, the Mashwash and Libu, probably indicates the arrival of people from Kyrene and its hinterland, which stood further west than any Egyptian army had campaigned." (p.96)

Manley doesn't state his sources or give footnotes for his claims either BECAUSE it is not an academic scholarly book--like TourEgypt. I do know that Ramesses II did campaign against the Libyan tribes around the middle half of his reign but but I have to accept Manley's word that the second batch of invading Libyan tribes came from Kyrene although I don't know wherre this place is. Manley's sources are only very general and given in p.136 under the title "Further Reading" where a slew of books are listed. So, TourEgypt follows the same basic referencing method here as Manley; this is not at all unusual. Thank You. Leoboudv 00:30, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Beetstra, WP:A has nothing to do with the spam list. None whatsoever. While you may have a point, and I have long myself wanted to dig into the underlying sources, improperly blacklisting it as spam is not the appropriate manner in which to discuss those things. We have a wikiproject, and politly talking to us there will go over much better than gouging out references from half of our pages behind our backs.
Now, I want to reiterate some things. This page was added at the whim of an admin who had no consensus, and who refuses to even consider that he was wrong when informed by three people who have much more experience working with this link and the related articles that he was wrong; instead he swears at us. Furthermore, he continually falsely insinuates that the pages in question exist primarily to make money, and that 50% of them are ads, despite consistant correction that the domain exists for making money and the subpages do not, and that the ads themselves make up only 10-20% of the page and are small banner ads with no dominant presence on the screen, which is obviously intended to be read as an informative article. These are the facts which this discussion revolve around, and it seems that the discussion is veering away from these:
*None of the pages linked were put there for the sake of financial benefit for touregypt.net. Therefore, there are no spammers.
*None of the pages exist primarily to sell you somthing. Therefore, there is no spam. Certainly they hope that you would buy somthing, but I have a whole shelf of books that the authors wrote in the hopes that you would buy them, and we don't call those spam, do we? Touregypt didn't write this stuff out of some great philanthropic endevour; they wrote it to make a buck, but the fact is that what they wrote are informative and valuable articles on par with and often superior to wikipedia's.
What webpage doesn't have banner ads these days except Wikipedia and Google? The presence of those ads does not make spam. When those ads become the page, then we have spam problems, but all users acclamated to the internet know they exist and tune everything of that nature out. For that reason, it would not be improper to say that in fact touregypt has absolutly no advertising at all, because all the ads stay where they are expected and ignored. Thanatosimii 00:40, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I am sorry if I appeared hostile and inflexible, the attempt at the whitelist I saw as a way that some users were attempting to bypass this discussion. I was in meetings all weekend and was unable to devote the time needed to properly defuse this argument. The best method that I see beetstra and XX7 already stated Find a better source that is not advertisement and that is a reliable source. using a commercial site that is designed to make money, when there are better non commercial sites available with better material content. why not use the free improved content? as linking to these other commercial sites just pours money into the site owners pocket, while the benefit to the WikiMedia foundation and its products are null or maybe even harmful. as touregypt provides only scraped text that is in a lot of other tourism selling sites. since the mission of WikiMedia and thus wikipedia and all other parts is to provide free high quality information that has good references. no where on touregpt does it say who the author is or where that information came from. can that site's data be trusted? I dont know as they fail to provide the author or where they got their source from. thus I sugest that we instead of arguing about this site we leave it on the SBL and have a drive to improve the information and citation of the articles in question. Betacommand 04:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If you in good faith can say what you have said to be true... then we're not reading the same pages! Are you sure you looked at specific pages or just the main page? The articles always tell where they got their info from - Usually from very good sources. However, you've once again missed the point. While "better sources" are always preferred, that does not justify blocking somthing as spam which is not spam, as has been shown time and time again. You may have a case that we should go to the underlying sources eventually, but take that up in proper channels, not the spam blacklist. To quote someone from previously in the discussion,
This site seems to have been blocked for one reason - spamming wikipedia (which it wasn't), and now is not unblocked for another. This strikes me as someone making a mistake and then not being able admit they were wrong. So much for this being a community.
Further, you cannot represent the intent of individual pages like the intent of the domain. Touregypt may be commercial, however touregypt/pagexyz is commercial in only a secondary manner, just like every other page on the internet. Thanatosimii 05:06, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok, you don't seem to understand the internet is not all commercial. this site was blacklisted because it was added. en-mass, it is a highly commercial purpose and there are far better free non commercial choices. instead of trying to defend a site what is designed to sell you a product, find a better higher quality source, www.si.edu is a great tool. if you want help replacing this spam site with a better one i am happy to source statements that the Wikiproject needs help. In the discussions of the recent Wiki meeting that was held in Saint petersburg, We have Identified the need to use free content and higher quality links, this idea needs to be supported and advanced by all of us, as we have strayed from that. why is there ever a link to a commercial site if it can be avoided? instead of spreading the advancement of free information, linking to commercial sites that have equlivant or even better content should be used. Betacommand 05:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Because it's a commercial site, but not necesarraly commercial pages. In the hopes to make money, Touregypt has provided some of the best informative sites on the internet. Your distaste for the domain does not justify blocking the individual pages, which are not commerical in any way other than motive, and as I have said before, money motive rules everything, and usually things done with profit in mind are better because of it. Thanatosimii 13:55, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
(unindent) Are we back to this argument, that all of these links were added "en-mass"? That argument was refuted above. Examine the evidence, Betacommand -- many of these links have been added piecemeal over two or more years by various editors. Even if Beetstra's evidence above proved some links were added with the intent of optomizing this website's Google rating (long after proof was asked for), most of these links were not. Those should have been left alone, & the question of their appropriateness raised instead in the proper place -- say [[en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject ancient Egypt|the ancient Egypt WikiProject talk page. But there has been no discussion. This site was blocked without notice or warning; you deleted this request for information from Thanatosimii about this block instead of answering it; when we show that the links were not the work of a spammer, people wail over the number of ads on this website; & even the possibility of making some case-by-case exceptions -- which might allow us to reach some consensus on the issue -- is blocked by you. Are you trying to build a consensus here, or are you just trying to win a victory over a group of Wikipedians? -- Llywrch 08:03, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Comment for Betacommand and Beetstra,

User XX7 mentioned this web site here: http://www.ancient-egypt.org as a replacement for TourEgypt.net. I know this web site--it is run by Jacques Kinnaer, who is studying to be an Egyptologist. So, he is a genuine academic unlike Jimmy Dunn, whose background I know little of except for the fact that he is a native of Texas. However, Jacques Kinnaer's web site also has two ads at the bottom of his web site on--guess what!--'Travel with Egypt Highlights' & 'Egypt Tailormade Holidays' the very same issue which apparently affected TourEgypt's status here. What guarantee does Thanatosimi, Llywrch or myself have that it won't one day also placed on a black list suddenly without our knowledge? Does the Admin--I'm assuming Betacommand--do a scan of this web site and see if the links to Ads approaches 20%, 30% or 40% before he makies this decision? What is the limit? Even a professional like Mr. Kinnaer needs a little revenue to maintain his web site since they aren't FREE.

Finally dear Betacommand, my main frustration with you is that the Wikipedia community was never given a chance to have a PRIOR SAY on whether to ban or not to ban TourEgypt.net. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to have a discussion on such matters before decisions are made on such serious matters as permanently banning sites. After all, there is already a pre-existing process on the matter of keeping or deleting potentially fictitious Wikipedia articles where people can make a vote and cite reasons for/against. All I know is that one of the most popular web sites on Ancient Egypt was blacklisted by a small IRC group out of the blue with no warning and the onus is placed on users of the site to justify its continued existence as a web linked reference source. What kind of a process is this? You still haven't given an answer to my question on the decision making process here. Why not? If there had been a prior discussion on TourEgypt earlier, I could reluctantly accept a majority vote against keeping the site here because at least I had a small say in the matter. Now, I don't know if http://www.ancient-egypt.org will be the next site to suddenly face the axe. Worse still, nobody knows if the next web reference site they link to will be deemed kosher today but not kosher tomorrow as TourEgypt was! Frankly, this situation unnecessarily angers Wikipedia contributors who spend their valuable time researching subjects and giving references. I agree with you that there are too many unscrupulous people who use the Internet to sell their wares and I wouldn't dare click on a site with a ".ru" extension but TourEgypt was not actively spamming Wikipedia or visitors to its site. I just accessed this great TourEgypt article on king Shepseskaf at  ://touregypt.net/featurestories/shepseskaf.htm with my pop up blocker set off and I was not bombarded with a single Pop Up Ad at all. TourEgypt doesn't do this kind of Spamming sir. Have you tried the link? Leoboudv 07:49, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Arbitrary section break 2

Good morning. I see there is a large part of text added. I am adding another section here, the talk becomes quite long. I recall asking to assume good faith, may I recall on that? Thanks!

The evidence above shows 7 additions in 17 minutes. That triggers our detection (our treshhold is set way lower than that!), and we go to see what happens. We saw here an anon editor adding external links to the external links sections of 7 pages without a proper explanation ('link is alive'). When we follow the link we get to a page with a substantial amount of advertisement and text. If we see the top-level documents of the site, we see it is fully advertisement (I think we have to consider that these parts of the site could have been linked as well, which was truely spam). If we examine the site as it was in the wikipedia more than 80% of these links was in external links sections (based on a subset of 63 examined pages). If it quacks like a duck, walks like a duck .. please also read 'how not to be a spammer' on en:WP:SPAM.

Spam gets blocked, I would argue that en:WP:SNOW could apply, do you really expect 7 days of discussion, hundreds of links being added before a site gets blocked. Please accept that mistakes are made, and that is why we have a 'remove from blacklist' discussion here. We have already told numerous times, that when we have indeed made a mistake here, we are more than willing to discuss and revert our actions, if we are wrong. Oh, the reason the link got deleted from the pages is because it is blacklisted, you would not be able to save the page. If it is blacklisted (for whatever reason) .. it has to be removed from the site.

OK, the site got spammed. I am sorry that it got blacklisted because it was unintentional spam, but that is what happened. Now the question is, would this site have been appropriate in the first place; it is a tourism site with extra infomation, meant to sell products, not impartial, fails en:WP:EL, so what that regards it is not in the wrong place on this blacklist.

In other words, could this site be a reliable source, because in that case it should indeed not be blacklisted. The test there is, does it pass en:WP:A. I asked for some evidence that shows us that this site gets used by respected third-party sources. I should indeed have added to that request that "such-and-such does not state his sources or give footnotes for his claims either because it is not an academic scholarly book--like TourEgypt" is also not a valid reason to include a site as a reference, true spam also does not source its claims. Could you please inform us why you believe Manley (a book, apparently not attributed), why you believe this site (a tourism site with extra information, not properly attributed, see my example above), and why you would not believe a site that I coud write on members.yahoo.com (I am not an egyptologist). I'd like to add, I can write a perfect scientific treatise that proofs that grass is orange based on references that state that grass is not black, white, yellow, red, blue, purple and violet, as long as I ignore the fact that it is proven to be green. Please don't talk around it, and when you discover sites that would also fail en:WP:A, you might consider that they are also not suitable as a reference on wikipedia, and that you could already start considering finding replacements. So in a nutshell: could you please explain why this site is a unique resource and show that gets used by independent, respected third-party sources as a reference. Thank you. --Beetstra 09:54, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Besides being primarily commercial, it is informative, but is less informative than other non-commercial web sites. Those proposing removal have still not disproven this point depite being asked. I have studied Egyptian history and culture extensively and have been to Ancient Egyptian sites, but I would not make use of this web site because the amount of useful information on the web site is very limited. --XX7 12:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

As I have said before, the link did not get spammed. You cannot assume what you are trying to prove as evidence for what you are trying to prove! Further, XX7, what you have said is arbitrary opinion. I have also studied Egyptian history extensivly, and I would use touregypt since it is superior to almost all pages out there, including wikipedia most of the time. Now, The links were not added en-masse, therefore there is no spamming, and the pages themselves are primarily informative, therefore there is no spam. You cannot keep avoiding these two problems. If it's not spam, even if we're going to go throughout the entirity of wikipedia and replace all the links for other reasons, you still can't have it on the spam blacklist! Thanatosimii 13:52, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Quit bullshiting and prove your point, we have proven that it was spammed at a rate of 28 links per hour when it was detected. the site provides not much more than text scraped from some tourism. database. It may have not been spammed in your definition. but the site is in violation of several wikipedia policies. there are better more accurate non commercial sites available if you want help replaceing them Ill be glad to give a hand. But as that sites pupose is comercail and solely commercial it should be on the SBL. get over it and move on. instead of filling pages of text with bullshit how about we improve the wiki and replace this spam site with better sources? Betacommand 14:53, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Telling another editor to "quit your bullshitting" is not a demonstration of good faith; with one edit you have undercut everything Beetstra attempted to achieve with his post. I gave you a warning above about your language Betacommand: & your language & your attitude is poisoning this conversation. As long as you treat me, Thanatosimii, Leoboudv, & the rest of us with contempt, this dispute will never be resolved. I have requested an Admin here on Meta deal with you; get your temper under control, or I will take further actions concerning you. -- Llywrch 17:32, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Please note that wikimedia is not censored. yet again you continue to skirt the issue, provide no valid argument for the site, and refuse to accept the reasoning of 3 admins on 2 separate projects, please do not get offended or take this personally. I do not address my comments that way. I have seen the need to use forceful language to address this issue since you seem to be ignoreing the reasons and suggestions of me and XX7. you insist on using a for profit site when there are clear on profit sites that are better sources. I have never intended to make statements about editors I have made statements about the site in question. please instead of asking for me to be blocked why not help and replace the touregypt links with better links? if you need help I will gladly give it. Betacommand 17:50, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am surprised Thanatosimii that if you have studied Ancient Egypt in any depth that you would want to make use of a web site that is so limited in the information it makes available. If you had studied Ancient Egypt in detail you would already know what is on that web site and far more. It is not a matter of opinion that the web site is limited if you can not point out anything about the web site that is not readily available on a non-commercial web site. I challenge you to point out something useful on the web site that I can not find easily elsewhere. If you can I will withdraw my opposition. If you can't then I will assume that its inclusion is based on its commercial use. --XX7 15:15, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Beetstra, Bill Manley's book is not fictitious. Here is the link to it by Penguin publishers. [97] The quote which I wrote exists--I know because I own the book in my home. Secondly, please note that I am not a spammer. I don't go around creating fictitious references. It just not in my nature. If possible, I try to quote references from journals or major academic libraries whenever possible. I apologise that the 7 reversals which you criticised were made by me anonymously but somehow my newer Dell computer is set up in such a way that I have to 'sign in' before I can make a contribution on Wikipedia under my official Leoboudv name. It doesn't let me directly access Wikipedia on my Leoboudv account. And often, when I am tired, I forget to sign in and so my 'Leoboudv' name does not pop up; instead my User No does. If I was a true spammer, why wld I have stopped at just 7 articles, when hundreds of touregypt sites were removed. Can you please answer my question on http://www.ancient-egypt.org/--a web page operated by the Belgian scholar Jacques Kinnaer that XX7 mentioned. It also has 2 'smaller' ads for Egyptian tourism listed at the bottom. How does Wikipedia determine if this site is kosher or not; is there a cut off limit of 10, 20, or 40 for spam/ads material? I don't know the limit but you should since you seem proficient on such technology matters. Even this National Geographic profile of Zahi Hawass, the famous head of Egypt's Supreme Council of Antiquities, contains 4 Ads at the bottom of its article here.[98] However, no one suggests banning National Geographic from Wikipedia.

As for Betacommand, Why can't you state the blacklisting DECISION MAKING PROCESS at Wikipedia? Why is no prior notifiction given to the at least registered Egyptological editors like Thanatosimi or Captmondo.? Why do you keep avoiding the matter; it seems as if you have something to hide. Beetstra cites wp:spam and this fine as far as it goes but he didn't make the decison to remove TourEgypt, you did sir. Since TourEgypt was kosher last week but not now, I don't know whether http://www.ancient-egypt.org/ will be removed next because it has 2 tourism ads to Egypt in it. Many good news sites--even major ones like Time Magazine have some Ads in them. Can both of you kindly respond to my 2 clear questions? Thank You. Leoboudv 21:08, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

yet again you doge the validity of the questions why not use better sources? in regard to posting SBL stuff to en.wikipedia.org --why? 1) I cant blacklist things, 2) this covers more than just en wikipedia so why post on a minor project? instead I asked crossproject and had a meta admin place it on the SBL. I have nothing to hide, if I did what you asked and contacted the Egyptological editors I would have to post in no less than 239 different pages and different languages. just because a site is "kosher" now doesnt mean that it is not spam. the fact of the matter is that this site is there to produce money for the owner and not to provide info. yet it has been pointed out repeatedly and I shall point out one more time, this is a limited info site, better sources are a available yet you refuse to use better sources, and there have been at least three admins on 2 different projects that disagree with your assessment , and I again offer to assist in helping with replaceing them if you want help. Betacommand 21:39, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
A compromise solution? If a Wikimedia Administrator could use some discretion and RETAIN the Pre-existing Touregypt articles on the kings, temples, tombs and pyramids of Ancient Egypt to remain before the blacklist was created--while removing the remaining TourEgypt articles on other less significant matters such as the cuisine of Egypt, I think this solution would ended this dispute fopr the most part by allowing everyone to move on with their lives. Is the other side willing to give some latitude and acquiesce to this approach. My proposal is that only registered Wikipedia editors such as--Thanatosimi, Captmondo or Llywrch--(this excludes me naturally) would give the Admin. a list of previously posted TourEgypt stories on the aforementioned topics are allowed to stay on Wikipedia. Naturally, no future stories by TourEgypt will be allowed. I think now this is better than continuing with this dispute. It would be a compromise but it is better than the present situation where Wikipedia's own Egyptology editors are enraged at having their stories and web references on TourEgypt suddenly banned. It is also preferable because the hardwork of registered on-line editors like Thanatosimi on Ahmose I, founder of the Egyptian 18th dynasty, are recognised and saved for posterity. Personally Betacommand, I am disappointed that you deleted Thanatosimi's post on the discussion site of Ancient Egypt about the TourEgypt situation. Didn't you consider that Thanatosimi is one of Wikipedia's top editors or that his work on Ahmose I made the front page of Wikipedia earlier this year? Your action here makes it seem as if you made up your mind long ago and wld rather burn bridges than accept a compromise. Dismissing people's views or shuting them aside is not a wise way of winning friends in this complex world of ours--look where it has gotten the present US president thus far. Can all of us accept this compromise--painful as it may be? Thank You

(On Betacommand's offer of help, I kindly thank you for the offer but I prefer to do my research thru. google and in my University--which I only rarely visit since I graduated long ago in 1996. There is only one online on king Shepseskaf but it lacks the range of important images on this king's monuments unlike TourEgypt I'm afraid.)

On another matter, XX7's not unreasonable suggestion of using The Ancient Egypt site of Jacques Kinnaer as a reference is not possible because all this sites articles contain the same http://www.ancient-egypt.org/ link. So, you may try to bookmark a story on a king or temple which you find on this site but when you copy/paste its URL on Wikipedia or anywhere else amd then click on the weblink, you immediatedly bounce right back to the front page of the Ancient Egypt Site! In contrast, with TourEgypt, all its web stories such as the one on pharaoh Shepseskaf include the name of the subject within it's URL link (ie: touregypt.net/featurestories/shepseskaf.htm); so when you bookmark the link, you immediately come right to his story and his reign. Leoboudv 02:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I had no issue getting a link to this or this or [99] on Shepseskaf from the site that you said that you cant link to. Betacommand 18:28, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

A final defence of touregypt.net

I took some time off from this debate, & it appears that this issue is still unresolved. During my time away, I was able to regain a bit of perspective, & realized that we are debating ove incidentals, when in the broader scheme of things, it is clear that this website is not the work of spammers. Allow me to explain.

First, examine one of the pages on this website, selected at random. Someone above mentioned the page ancientegypt/, so I'll use that as an example. It has several large banner ads at the top, a column of navigational icons on the left to articles elsewhere in the website, and a column of advertising on the right; the widths are approximately 50% of the page for the column containing the text, & 25% for each of the columns on the left & right. (Please note: some of the pages have no ads on them whatever.) Now let's look at one website I often read -- Talking Points Memo, a political news website. Like touregypt.net, it has a banner ad at the top and is divided into three columns, one for text, one for advertising, & containing links to articles. The text is about 55% of the width of page -- about the same width as touregypt.net. The two sites have the same overhead-to-content ratio -- yet I doubt anyone in good faith can claim that Talking Points Memo is the work of a spammer & exists only to attract click-thrus.

There are a lot of commercial media websites with similarly high advertising content, yet Wikipedia editors have linked to their content. CNN's website, for example, has a three-column layout, with not only one column dedicated to ads, but also has advertising in the footer to its pages. My hometown newspaper's website, OregonLive not only has the same layout as the other websites I've mentioned so far, but intersperses the text column with more ads; so do a lot of US newspapers. About the only newspaper website I could find after a half-hour's surfing that is not heavy with advertising is The Guardian's: it has a lot of white space, one narrow column -- yet even alongside its articles there are a few ads.

In short, if you block touregypt.net for having too many advertisements, you will also have to block the websites of hundreds of US newspapers (& likely the newspapers of other countries), as well as the websites of a number of television broadcasters -- all of which are linked to by Wikipedia articles. To enforce this consistency of policy would be chopping off our nose to spite our face -- as well as just letting the letter of a decision kill the spirit of the idea of verifiability.

Now, what about the claim that this website exists solely to sell tours to Egypt. I won't deny this is the website's function. However, think a minute about why anyone would be interested in traveling to Egypt: most people go there to see the remains of ancient Egypt. If you pay money for a travel package to go there, you want it run by people who know something about ancient Egypt; if the tourist agency confuses Ramesses II with Akhenaten on their website, it's a clear sign that the agency will fail to satisfy their customer in other ways. Compare this to a tourist destination like Cancun, where the primary attractions are sun, water, & partying with (allegedly) attractive strangers; yes, there are some Mayan ruins nearby, but the travelers who are primarily interested in these ruins are self-sufficient & are likely to know far more about what is there than any run-of-the-mill packaged tourist guide.

Touegypt.net is offering knowledge as an incentive to use their services, much as an industry group, or a professinal association would provide information & the results of research either to promote their products -- or other goals. We don't automatically blacklist all links to them just because of their perceived (or demonstrated bias); we debate the value of each link, removing or inserting them, as we improve those articles that link to them.

And as a last point, an open secret of Egyptology is that the experts spend far more time raising money than they do digging, analyzing -- or teaching the subject. For example, in the fall 2006 issue of KMT, a reliable popular publication on Egyptology, there is an advertisement for a tour of Egypt accompanied by Professor Kent Weeks -- the same Professor Weeks known for finding & excavating the tomb of the sons of Ramesses II in the Valley of the Kings. He's not selling out for a quick buck -- if you've read his book, you'll know that money for excavation & conservation of Egyptian sites is very limited & the need great. Then there is the issue of publishing the findings: last time I saw a published figure, the findings of the vast majority of archeological sites are never published to a professional level, due to an absence of money.

In conclusion, as the facts stand there is no good reason to blacklist this site. While the information on this website is not in the form we'd all prefer -- signed, peer-reviewed articles brimming with references -- I'd say that it's likely most of the material is written by professionals, who are likely raising funds for their next archeological project. There is a lot of advertising -- but many legitimate websites have a lot of ads on their pages, more than I'll admit I would like to see. Banning links to the entire commercial Internet will only cripple our goal of providing verification for the facts in our articles. -- Llywrch 18:22, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Betacommand, You are correct about the situation on the Ancient Egypt site and I was mistaken. The links on Shepseskaf don't bounce back to the site's front page as I had thought. My apologies sir. However, I must make an important observation: in the useful link which you cited on Shepseskaf's royal titulary/title and tomb here The Tomb of Shepseskaf, there are at least 3 Ads at the bottom of the article for Amazon.com, 'Ka-Gold Jewellry' and 'Egyptian Jewellry'. They are all commercial sites--I have accessed them. This reinforces what Llywrch is saying above: many useful/informative Web sites today feature Ads partly because their creators need the money to keep them running. Its not cheap if you are an Egyptologist from North America since you must consider the costs of plane trips to Egypt let alone accomodation before you even visit its museums or the world famous toursim sites at Giza or Karnak. The information on TourEgypt.net is not peer reviewed or footnoted--as Llywrch notes but then neither is the article by Jacques Kinnaer's Ancient Egypt site on Shepseskaf. However, the TourEgypt article on Shepseskaf (see here touregypt.net/featurestories/shepseskaf.htm with the http:// link to access it) does contain a bibliography of FIVE popular and mainstream Egyptological books for the information on Shepseskaf whereas Kinnaer's site only cites Mark Lehner's ONE book The Complete Pyramids. Nobody suggests that Mr. Kinnaer is unreliable because his web site's data certainly is accurate.

My question rather is why Mr. Kinnaer's articles on The Ancient Egypt Site are considered acceptable--when it only lists one primary reference for his source materials--whereas TourEgypt.net which cites 5 separate book sources on Shepseskaf is banned from Wikipedia when both sites contain some Advertisement. I am not saying that you should now blacklist the Ancient Egypt Site too because of my analysis here. What I am rather saying is that Touregypt.net should be also acceptable to Wikipedia since both sites have ads and have been deemed reliable by Wikipedia's registered editors--who are the best judges on the accuracy of a book. Do you see my point here? I believe this is the best argument for removing TourEgypt.net from the blacklist because if we wish to be consistent against banning any commercial content, we would have to delete every web site which features important commercial links including Llywrch's local paper 'The Oregonian'--something everyone knows is just not desirable. Personally, the only difference I can see between TourEgypt.net and The Ancient Egypt site is that the latter has fewer Ads than TourEgypt.net. Thank You Leoboudv 06:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Dear Betacommand, I hope you have read both Llywrch and my arguments above AND WILL TAKE THE TIME TO RESPOND HERE. If you prefer to ignore the points raised by and proceed to blacklist other web sites whose subjects you know very little about because they feature some commercial content, you will certainly invite more criticism and frustration from other Wikipedia contributors. How can that be good for the Wikipedia's reputation of openness? From my perspective, you have FAILED to consider the central fact that the two aforementioned sites on Ancient Egypt both feature useful material and some commercial links. And yet you have chosen to Blacklist one site--without any PRIOR discussion or dissent--while you permit the other site on Wikipedia. If one follows your high standards on spam free web sites, however, the web pages of virtually every newspaper in the world would be blacklisted from Wikipedia!

You are not consistent on the matter at hand. Everyone knows that a significant percentage of ".ru" web pages contains spam that bombards visitors with spam and attempts to hijack the subject's computer browser. No one wants those sites on Wikipedia. However, TourEgypt.net has never done this in all their years of operation. Similiarly, the Egyptian government itself didn't have any problems contracting TourEgypt to operate their all important Tourism Web page in the past from 2000 until at least late 2002. This tells me--and most informed viewers--that TourEgypt is a credible web site on Ancient Egypt, not a giant spamming operation. Leoboudv 02:28, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Touregypt links not worth the fight to save or delete

Without expressing a view one way or another on the merit of these links or whether they should be added or deleted, it pains me to see the tensions ratcheting up on this issue. Some of the editors arguing over these links (pro and con) are valued, high-volume editors on en.wikipedia -- for example:

Is there a way to discuss this while toning down the rhetoric? --A. B. (talk) 18:28, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

It's a simple matter of whether this web site is the best web site for the information it provides. If it isn't then it's not needed anyway. If it is the best web site for this information, then what does it matter if the web site also gets a bit of business out of it. However, so far, those in favour of removal are not taking up the challenge to list what is available on this web site that isn't readily available on non-commercial web sites. --XX7 19:33, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

There, in one paragraph, is why I don't see this discussion ever coming to a successful conclusion. Let me set aside my concern about how this site was blacklisted in the beginning (we can discuss this in the thread I started at en:Wikipedia: Village pump (policy)), & focus on the simple issue of linking to this site. One side is arguing for linking to it, or at least for some, specific articles. The other side repeatedly replies "No -- & no exceptions." In the previous stalemated cases like this, the result would be to take the most inclusive option -- which would be to remove this website from the blacklist. If this is done, the debate over this webiste does not end, it just moves to a less pressured environment; allowing exceptions for specific pages would achieve the same result (but I'll admit that I am not objective in this matter ;-). However, the other side repeatedly replies "No -- & no exceptions." Frustration follows. -- Llywrch 19:56, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

XX7, you are entierly wrong. This is an issue over what belongs on the blacklist and what does not. Touregypt is not spam and was not spammed, as has been proven definitivly time and time over again. For whatever other reasons you do not like the site, that does mean that you immediatly remove it from the spam blacklist. Period. Thanatosimii 22:10, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I am not an Administrator on the blacklist so it is not up to me. However, I am interested in this discussion because I know Ancient Egypt well, and yet I am completely baffled as to why so much is thought of this web site. I do not dislike the site. I just have little regard for it because it provides only basic information that can be readily found elsewhere. People are objecting because it's primarily commercial. However, even if you ignore the commercial aspect altogether I still can't understand what all the fuss is about. Please let me know which information you think is so vital on this web site. If I can find better elsewhere then you would no longer need the touregypt web site. I have asked this question before but nobody took up the challenge, I suspect because it would prove that touregypt.net really isn't needed. --XX7 12:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

With that comment, this is how this entire conversation has gone:
  • Why is this site being blacklisted? Who decided that?
    • A spammer added too many links to this site, so it was blocked.
  • These links were added by a large number of different people over a period of years. Even if a spammer added some of them, the site should not be blocked.
    • Those questions are irrelevant: any links are forbidden because the site has too much advertising, & obviously is a spam site. So it should stay blocked.
  • No, it doesn't have too much advertising. There is useful content there, so it should be unblocked.
    • The amount of advertising is irrelevent. The content is not useful, so it should stay blocked.
sigh Need I repeat that the value of content is determined on Talk pages, not by the unilateral decisions of spam-fighters?
Since I am repeating myself, I'd like to point out that I proposed a compromise, that specific pages be on this website be whitelisted. Beetstra appeared to at least be willing to consider that idea, but Betacommand blocked this attempt to implement it; obviously he is against that suggestion. Unless some compromise is found, I can only plead to the Admin closing this discussion that because this discussion is deadlocked, both precedents & the principle of the simplest solution directs that this website be removed from the spamlist. -- Llywrch 17:26, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

"Need I repeat that the value of content is determined on Talk pages" Llywrch - That's a fact, but it doesn't answer the repeatedly asked and most basic of questions - why is so much fuss is being made about this site when it has so little to offer ??? --XX7 19:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Because every argument the defenders of this website make is ignored. No one has provided the information about who originally decided to block this site -- or what the original reason was. Claims that a spammer has added any links to this website have been refuted. At this moment, the only reason for keeping it on the blacklist is because some editors believe this is a poor source of information; which is not why websites are added to the spam blacklist. If this action stands, then editors will seek to win content disputes by adding the websites of their opponents to the spamlist because "they have so little to offer"; this is the beginning of the slipperly slope. If no other reason for why it was blacklisted than this content-related objection, then why not remove this site from the blacklist? -- Llywrch 22:45, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
All of what you have written is true, but dodges the question of what real use is it ? Regardless of all this, it seems that nobody in support of its removal can state anything on this site that is not better provided elsewhere. If you let me know what it is on the site that you think is useful, I will provide alternative and better sources for you. If I can provide you with better sources of information, and you still fuss over this site, then it begins to defy reason. If I can't provide better alternatives, I will be supporting you. --XX7 11:54, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I second that. --Beetstra 18:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So both of you would endorse a process where websites are put on the spam blacklist, then that action is justified after the fact by claiming "the content of the site is not good enough"? That is what is exactly what is happening here, & neither of you have defended or acknowledged that act. -- Llywrch 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Let me say one more thing in defense of Touregypt please. The blacklist makes Touregypt links impossible to add not only to English Wikipedia but to other language Wikipedias as well. I'm working on articles about Ancient Egypt in Hungarian Wikipedia, and linked to Touregypt several times. Someone said Touregypt does not provide anything that cannot be found elsewhere. Please note that while in English-speaking countries books and other material on Egypt is easy to found, it is not the same everywhere. Here in Hungary one either relies on the internet for information, or orders books from abroad, which is not something everyone can afford. Please take this into consideration. regards, 86.101.35.73 20:16, 22 March 2007 (UTC) (forgot to sign in.) Alensha 20:17, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Touregypt.com is not in Hungarian. So if Hungarian Wikipedia uses English Language web sites, it could use the same web sites that English Wikipedia ends up using. If there are better sites than touregypt.com it could use those instead. So far, judging by the complete failure by touregypt.com supporters to point out anything the web site has that is not better provided on other web sites, neither English nor Hungarian Wikipedia will miss it at all. --XX7 20:34, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Alensha, you have the simplest solution of all of us: on the Hungarian Wikipedia, find the equivalent of en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist, & ask that the pages you want to link to be whitelisted. Although I appreciate your support here in this misapplication of process.
As for your comment, XX7, unless you have an account on hu.wikipedia.org, you -- as well as I -- have no say on what they do over there. If Alensha can persuade the Admins there to whitelist all of touregypt.net, then they have the right to act as they see fit & whitelist it. -- Llywrch 20:56, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Touregypt like most internet sites has a commercial and an educational component. Where should the line be drawn between these two polarities? The threshold may perhaps depend on the ability to replace a more commercial reference with one of less commercial intent. A case by case decision, obviously, not one which can be dealt with on a large scale. In the case of touregypt, clearly there is the intent to sell touristic values, but that is true for many sites, and if the information is valuable, I may want it anyway. What is wrong writing in wikipedia and using a commercial site if it provides good information? It should not stop the writing process. If YOU are a better writer or have more information, please REPLACE the reference with a better one. That is the basics of how wikipedia works; each article is improved in little increments by all of us. The system breaks down when somebody determines arbitrarily and without discussion that references are to be censored and does so on a grand scale. Removing references without replacement is a form of vandalism, leaving the article in a mess, and violates the basic premise of the wikipedia process. Ekem 03:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I second that. -- Llywrch 19:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
me too. this was the best argument I've heard so far. (and Llywrch, thanks for the idea, I'll try to get it whitelisted for huwiki, but I'd like to link to touregypt from enwiki too.) Alensha 00:12, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As the one who started all this, and was blissfully unaware of the fuss it caused until I felt the need to add a cite and was wondering if it had been delisted, I also second Ekem's most sensible analysis. In particular, since XX7 has been so adamant that it's a low-quality source and he knows of many better ones online, I'd really appreciate it if he'd use them to replace all the deleted cites. By Wikipedia's standards of atttribution, these articles are all now quantitatively of lower quality now than they were before. Many of them also require a great deal of work apart from that, and could use all the help they can get from editors who are familiar with good sources. Csernica 01:35, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


This has gone on long enough. Done (as in removing it from the blacklist) There appears to be serious support for this site from established editors, (more then one), and it appears that the site does indeed have some areas which are not as "spammy" as others. All I'm going to caution is to make sure that there is not a better source then this one. When I added this link I thought (by the pages I loaded in) it was spam. Eagle 101 01:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

PWInsider.com

  • pwinsider.com is a credible wrestling news site that has its news articles cited as references on many Wikipedia pages. Although it does contain many pop-ups, it is not a spam website. 68.233.38.54 03:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, site was spammed many times in the past few days on en.wiki. Naconkantari 04:08, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
So why aren't you banning the people that are spamming the link? The URL has nothing to do with the problem. 68.233.38.54 05:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
We are doing both. Naconkantari 18:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is ridiculous though. The site is a good source for info for wrestling related articles. Would you ban a site like cnn.com just because some people spammed it? TJ Spyke 05:55, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Touegypt.net

Dear Betacommand, I notice today that you did not bother to respond--and justify--to your own WikiMedia blacklist discussion regarding TourEgypt.net here.[100] You never informed your own official Wikipedia editors on Egyptology such as Thanatosimi[101], Captmondo[102] or Llywrich that you were about to blacklist TourEgypt.net even though they have carried the burden of wikiproofing Egyptology on Wikipedia. The impression I have of you is someone who doesn't value or care about archaeology or our world's ancient history like so many members of the Egyptological Wikipedia community do. You never commented on the fact that TourEgypt.net was contracted by the Egyptian government to run the Egyptian Department of Antiquities and Tourism web pages in the past. TourEgypt is not a spammer who uses Wikipedia to sell their wares when any search on Google can turn up an Egypt-related article by this firm. You just decided suddenly to ban this invaluable web site WITHOUT PRIOR WARNING OR DISCUSSION and undermine the efforts of good people like Thanataosmi, Llywrych and Captmondo whose article on king Ahmose I, the founder of Egypt's New Kingdom, was so good in terms of quality, that it was featured ond day on the front pages of Wikipedia this January or February. When there is an attempt to remove an article on Wikipedia, a talk forum is first created so that contributors can weigh the pros or cons of removing a particular article but you did not try to do this.

How can you be so crass and insensitive towards people who have worked to improve Egyptological articles on Wikipedia for years--especially when they are your own Wikipedia editors. Is it your goal to undermine the reliability of Wikipedia more than the editors of Encyclopaedia Brittanica who despise us? Because if that is your goal, you are close to achieving it by angering so many people who care about Ancient Egypt and Ancient history on Wikipedia with your arbitary decision here. Regards, Leoboudv 23:10, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Im sorry I have more important issues today, I am currently in Saint Petersburg, Florida, at a conference with the WikiMedia board Sorry I didnt take time out today to address your complaint of blocking a spam site. I was meeting with Danny, Kat, Brion, Florence and the other Board members excluding Jimbo (he's in Japan). I was in meetings all day. touregypt is spam over half the fucking page is spam if you cant cite the article without using a tourism booking service I think you have a more important issue than I thought, you have to use a site designed to sell product as a source? this fails WP:EL WP:SPAM what else is needed to explain it? Betacommand (talk • contribs • Bot) 01:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Dear Betacommand, judging from this post of yours I'm not sure you are the most qualified person to decide what should be on the block list and what not. Do you think ads on, for example, www.touregypt.net/featurestories/ramessesi.htm are really that intrusive?
Also, name-dropping will get you nowhere. Guess what, I also met Jimbo, I bet thousands of Wikipedians met him since he is kind enough to take time to talk with Wikipedians whenever he can. regards, Alensha 15:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, please keep discussion in the section above. Naconkantari 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ThePublishingContrarian.com

http:www.thepublishingcontrarian.com is an international literary blog. I was just updating the "Reference" and "External Links" to appropriate Wikipedia pages like: Judith Regan, James Frey, The Vaginia Monologues, The History Boys (which I do every few months) when I got a message that my link to The History Boys (a review) was deleted and that I was blacklisted as a spammer. In checking my previous additions to Wikipedia,I noticed that they have ALL now been deleted, such as the one I had in "Slush Pile." Could I ask you to reconsider your position on these "References" and "External Links" and reactive them. Thank you. Lynne W Scanlon

This is an international literary blog. I have added links in "Reference" or "External Links" in Wikipedia areas such as Publishing, Slush-Pile, etc., which bring visitors occasionally over to read my full postings on my blog. Today I was adding external links to The History Boys and James Frey, The Vagina Monologues, and Judith Regan, etc., updating my links, when I got a message re The History Boys link being deleted and my URL being on the blacklist. It now looks like you have removed all the links I ever added to Wikipedia! Could I ask you to reconsider your position and activate my links to The Publishing Contrarian. Thank you. LWS

This site is not blocked on meta, but it is blocked by en:user:shadowbot. You could try and make your case on en:user talk:shadowbot to get it unblocked, but it got blocked because you were spamming it, and it does not comply with en:WP:EL. Moreover, I see you have a conflict of interest. Hope this helps. --Beetstra 19:34, 17 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thanks for the quick response--LWS (I'll try and figure out how to get to shadowbot!)

Just click the blue link I provided you: en:user talk:shadowbot. --Beetstra 00:46, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, not blacklisted. Naconkantari 04:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ 2nd time

viartis.net/parkinsons.disease/ is an information web site concerning Parkinson's Disease. It is the most comprehensive web site on Parkinson's Disease - far more comprehensive than the Wikipedia article. Consequently, it appears on all of the Parkinson's Disease web sites including National Parkinson's Disease organisations and Parkinson's Disease patient forums.

1. viartis.net was blacklisted after being added to only one Wikipedia article on only one occasion, for 15 minutes, on the 13th August 2006.

2. The brief addition was directly relevant to the article, which concerned Parkinson's Disease, and was added merely as a reference to further detail concerning that subject.

3. There is not even one advert on the entire web site.

4. According to Wikipedia's definition of spam, it did not fulfill any of the definitions of spam. SeeWikipedia spam.

5. Rather than the viartis.net site being checked to see if it constituted spam, which it didn't, it's maintenance on the blacklist was due to merely asking the opinion of somebody who described himself as a minor editor, who had a personal grievance against the editor. When asked his opinion of viartis.net, he confused the issue by responding instead about a different web site.

There are no grounds for maintaining viartis.net on the spam blacklist because it plainly does not fulfill the definition of spam. Nobody has been able to contradict that fact. --XX7 22:16, 19 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Ok, we just did this once above. If you can get agreement to add this link to that article, I will take it off of the blacklist, though I think that the whitelist is better suited for this. P.S. I'm sure I can find a similar source elsewhere as well :) Eagle 101 21:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
The request has already also gone on to the Whitelist. If approval for removing from the blacklist is needed on a particular article then any two editors on any article could unreasonably ensure without any reason whatsover that any article is blacklisted and remain that way. The decision should be with the Administrator of the SPAM blacklist based on facts and reasoning, rather than the arbitrary decision of what could be two anonymous editors. Whether or not it is added to any particular article after it is removed from the SPAM blacklist (where it clearly should never have been) is a later separate matter. If editors then object to its inclusion then so be it, as that would then be up to them, as it is on any Wikipedia article. If you are sure that you can find a similar source elsewhere that covers all of the content of ALL the pages, I challenge you or anyone else to do so, as I know in advance that you could not even come close. --XX7 22:20, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

cosplay-world.com

This website is one of the most important in my area and has a lot of historical archives from the past 10 years. I don't even know why I'm blacklisted! It is rather unfair to have to justify myself for being blacklisted for no apparent reason. Please remove my website from the blacklist.

It's not up to me, but out of curiosity, what is cosplay ? --XX7 14:03, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

People dressed like weird anime characters pretending to be some manga superhero --Jollyroger 08:44, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

->http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosplay

When I first saw this site I thought that it was very informative, although I wasn't sure what it was informative about because I didn't know what cosplay was. Now that other editors have kindly informed me about what cosplay is, it seems a bit odd, but then so are a lot of things. However, how it can possibly be on the blacklist is baffling. It provides detailed information about cosplay events, and does not have any adverts that I can find. For those people interested it would be a useful site. It's not up to me as I am not an Administrator here, but it really should be removed from the blacklist. It has no reason at all being there. --XX7 11:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=536776#cosplay-world.com is why it is on the spam blacklist. I will think about if taking it off if a good idea or not. Comments are welcome, but please realize that this is not a vote, so please don't use bold words infront of your comments. Thanks. Eagle 101 22:09, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Can a web site not be added to different language Wikipedias ? What if for example, there was an article on The White House on numerous Wikipedias. Could the White House web site not be added to all of the different language Wikipedias rather than just English Wikipedia ? Regarding cosplay-world.com I doubt if there is any better in other languages, so it seems reasonable that they add the web site to different language Wikipedias. --XX7 22:28, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

petrophoto.net

This site offers well-sorted galleries with photos of relevant places all around the world. Sure, they are rather small, but if equivalent photos are not available on Commons, a link to petrophoto might serve as a temporary substitute. --Langec 14:23, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=535949#petrophoto.net here is why it is on the spam blacklist. We got spammed across multiple wikis with this. I am going to note that you could possibly contact the owner of the site for permission, or if the images fall under public domain you can use that. I will consider taking it off, give me a day or two. Comments are welcome here. :) Eagle 101 22:13, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

bestwaytoinvest.com

This is a site for people interested in investing in commodities, futures or countries. There are articles, charts, and graphs on the advantages and disadvantages of different investment tools. I was notified that my site had been added to the spam filter when trying to add an external link to South America's economy page. This site has relevant and more importantly, current information on developments in the futures and spot markets. Please reconsider your decision to block us.

Not done you are attempting to spam your site onto wikipedia and related mediawiki sites. See here for evidence. If another meta admin thinks it should be taken off, feel free to do so, but I recommend strongly against removal. Eagle 101 22:40, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

ppstream.com

It's the official site of PPStream, a popular P2P streaming video software. I have no idea why it's included in the blacklist. -- scchiang

That article has already been deleted once. see this. Are we even sure that the community wants that article? Eagle 101 22:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Troubleshooting and problems

Latest comment: 17 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion
This section is for comments related to problems with the blacklist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being blocked), or problems saving a page because of a blacklisted link. This is not the section to request that an entry be unlisted (see Proposed removals above).

republica.com

The block in republica.com is also blocking republica.com.br, an important Brazilian website dedicated to political analysis. Dantadd 14:45, 7 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Other discussions

Latest comment: 17 years ago22 comments11 people in discussion

Referral Profiteering

Please consider a list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute. The idea is to prevent people adding links to articles which they profit from. Typically this would mean linking to a relevant book on amazon instead of an isbn number. Spiral Staircase 18:58, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Any ideas are welcome ;) Eagle 101 19:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

For the less knowledgeable amongst us please explain what is meant by a "list of referral affiliate syntax to filter/substitute". I guess that it is something to do with links to book web sites. At present can a book that is relevant to an artcile include a link to the publisher's web site that gives more details about the contents of the book, which would be useful, or to online books retailer's sites for that book such as those on Amazon ? --XX7 15:12, 17 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

What's wrong with linking to the details of a book on Amazon or elsewhere, which will provide detailed information about that book, rather than an ISBN, which doesn't supply any information about the book. With the ISBN, somebody would then have to go and look it up on Amazon anyway. The diversion is pointless. --XX7 14:01, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Details about a book are fine, as long as the link doesn't include a personal referral number that will allow the person who posted the link to profit if whoever clicks the link happens to buy that book. --Versageek 15:18, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

So does that mean that Amazon links such as the following are OK that give more details of the book without making money for an editor who has a personal referral number for it : Puccini : a biography. I added an Amazon link that merely gave more details of a book, yet it was immediately removed. --XX7 16:09, 23 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

You did this on the english wiki right? If so, you might want to ask over there if its 'ok'. Try asking at en:WT:EL, thats a pretty active page, and editors there know quite a bit about the external link guidelines. Cheers! Eagle 101 17:15, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thankyou, I'll check it out. It does seem to be a subject that causes people to differ in their opinions. Some see links to book details on publishers and online retailers web sites as useful information. Others see it as advertising. Most less experienced editors don't seem to know what Wikipedia policy is on this. --XX7 12:47, 25 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

  • Just put the ISBN, it it translated automagically into a link which can be used to get to the book from one of a large number of booksellers (also I think finds the Library of Congress catalogue and other details). No need even to use Wikisyntax, ISBN xxxxxxxx in plain text works. Links to Amazon or any other bookseller are strongly discouraged. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:54, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

blacklist problems

I am having problem editing as the spam blacklist prevents me from adding the following url: rakeshyogi.122mb.com Can anyone help. my icq 394635903


Help! When I try to edit I get this message:

The spam filter blocked your page save because it detected a blacklisted hyperlink. You may have added it yourself, the link may have been added by another editor before it was blacklisted, or you may be infected by spyware that adds links to wiki pages. You will need to remove all instances of the blacklisted URL before you can save.

Also:

The following text is what triggered our spam filter: [but if I try to include it, it blocks.]82.155.102.110 19:29, 21 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

Which page are you trying to include this link on? Naconkantari 05:43, 24 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

en:Cicada (mythology) & en:Ecstasy (emotion)

I endeavoured to link en:trance with en:Ecstasy (emotion) and returned a dialogue box with Spam blacklist...Please could somebody debunk this 4 me?

Thanxta B9 hummingbird hovering 22:42, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I'm going to assume this is for the english wiki, give me a second. Eagle 101 22:45, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply
Ok I've fixed this article. Let me know if that is all... if you are trying to edit a second article let me know. Eagle 101 22:49, 26 February 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but I was unsure exactly how to resolve this. My useracount "Merotoker" is blacklisted because it has the link obsessedwithwrestling.com. I do not use that link when editing pages, so I have no idea how it got there. I try to make proper edits, so if I can edit pages on my account, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and feel free to delete this message once I can edit again.

Spam in ref tags

This edit http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Circle_of_stars&diff=prev&oldid=111825822 saved OK, but sunsequent saves were spam blacklisted. Was there a temporary blacklist issue, or is this a bug? Thanks, 62.73.137.190 16:26, 1 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Remove blacklisted link

Could you please remove the blacklisted link please. It would be much obliged. It's hhtp://moyabrennan.forumfree.net.

Looks like forumfree has been blacklisted due to spam on one wiki. I will have a closer look later, for now I would just request whitelisting on your respective wiki. Eagle 101 06:14, 5 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Sytes.net

There seems to be no reason why sytes.net ought to be blacklisted...please consider removing it

Please request in the right section above. Most likely it was blacklisted due to spamming of it. Eagle 101 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Renal tubular acidosis

Appears to just have been blacklisted, probably as I was pasting the same message onto a few medical editors message boards as a request for comment. If that is the case, could it be unblacklisted please?134.59.105.218 16:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

We don't blacklist articles, please ask on your respective wiki. If it is a blacklist request, please ask in the right section. Thanks. Eagle 101 16:52, 6 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Landofthelegend.net

A link that has been consistently spammed on Wikipedia as a source. No notability asserted, noticeable opposition to its usage, fan site, and two different people have attempted to replace pages such as IGN with the link to it. While it could simply be removed through a lengthy RfC, it would be easier and cleaner for the web site to be blacklisted instead. - ALttP 22:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, while this is just hearsay at the moment, a Wikipedian claimed that the web site has since been blacklisted from being invited to Nintendo's E3 and GDC presentations. - ALttP 16:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

artnet.de/artist

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

Hi! I just got "Spam protection filter"-ed trying to edit w:Joseph Finnemore for a link to "http://www.artnet.de/artist". (I didn't put it in, it was there in the original!? Can't even put in this msg.) The link seems to be legit, to an old print. (There are some very* interesting items on the blocked list, though). What's the prob with this link? Are there any workarounds for this site? Thanks, --Saintrain 17:19, 10 March 2007 (UTC).Reply

(* Reminds me of the quandry the old missionaries faced: How do you tell them what "sin" is but not give them ideas.)

Ask de:Benutzer:Hedwig in Washington in English/German and de:Benutzer:MaxSem please, they are responsible. see: http://de.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Benutzer_Diskussion:Hedwig_in_Washington&diff=prev&oldid=26571641
Comment by Hedwig some days before: And now I´m waiting for complaints. Greetings 195.93.60.97 11:32, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Bullshit, I never said that. It's your personal problem that makes you frustrated. Don't blame your own inability on other user.--Hedwig in Washington 18:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • Is anyone here able - no, not you, Hedwig Troll from Washington - to answer the question of Saintrain and of all people, who will ask the same questions in the next years? Btw: de:artnet is a regular en:joint stock company and not suspected of producing spam (except by Hedwig and MaxSern. Unfortunately he speaks no German :-))
  • Examples: here <-- and and here from 22:34, 16. Dez. 2006 to 22:47, 16. Dez. 2006 . Does anyone find one single spamlink at artnet? You can win 5 Euros!
  • I guess, not the most engaged vandal is able to "produce" such a damage like Hedwig and Max, because these few examples from de can give only an impression to what is happening worldwide in wikipedia 195.93.60.97 09:28, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

jcsm.org blacklisted?

Latest comment: 17 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

I was trying to add an informative link to an article and I was told that jcsm.org links were blacklisted. However, I couldn't find the ban in the archives anywhere. Can someone tell me where it is? If there was no vote to ban, then please unban the link. I'm not sure why it would be banned, anyway. --Tyuley 03:08, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Also, I do not see this link here [103]. --Tyuley 03:11, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Not done, used for cross-wiki spam Naconkantari 18:57, 12 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

obsessedwithwrestling.com

Latest comment: 17 years ago23 comments12 people in discussion

User:JB196 was banned many moons ago and since then has used over 100 sockpuppets[104], and now has a long-term abuse page, has - over the past two weeks - spammed Xtreme Pro Wrestling, Extreme Associates, and Rob Zicari too many times to count with links to obsessedwithwrestling.com followed by /columns/jonathanbarber/00.html], to the point that the three pages have had to be semi-protected and that link was added to the meta spam blacklist. However, now he has resorted to just linking to the main page (obsessedwithwrestling.com, without the columns/jonathanbarber/ followup) of that web site[105][106][107][108][109][110][111][112][113][114], and multiple other times. We thought with the semi-protection of the aforementioned articles, everything was protected, but then today he started posting from an account (User:ApeonDrugs) and was able to add the links to those articles even while they were protected.== 198.138.41.54 02:38, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Done Naconkantari 03:07, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I strongly diagree with this and protest it. OWW is a very useful site for sourcing info on wrestlers and sourcing results for PPV pages. While reverting some vandalism, I had to remove a link to the page as well (thus taking another reliable source out of the article). Blocking it just because a banned user keeps adding it to some articles is ridulous and uneeded. This would be like blocking cnn.com because a blocked user keeps adding it. Unblock it. TJ Spyke 05:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with TJ Spyke, there's no reason to ban a legit source just because a known spammer inserts it.24.14.196.6 14:09, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I apologize if this is the wrong place to put this, but I was unsure exactly how to resolve this. My useracount "Merotoker" is blacklisted because it has the link obsessedwithwrestling.com. I do not use that link when editing pages, so I have no idea how it got there. I try to make proper edits, so if I can edit pages on my account, I would appreciate it greatly. Thank you and feel free to delete this message once I can edit again.

User accounts are not affected by entries on the spam blacklist. Your local wiki should be able to help you if you have problems editing. Naconkantari 21:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you for the information. However, how do I go about contacting my local wiki? Thanks again and sorry for any incovenience.

Nacon, could you please allow OWW again? It's a legit site that is used as a good source in many articles, so it shouldn't be blocked because a spammer keeps putting it in some articles. Just block the spammer and his IP. TJ Spyke 23:25, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
  • We have. Over a hundred times. But he keeps coming back, again and again and again. We have his column on OWW blacklisted, he's used redirection sites to get round that (which is almost a community service: we've blocked three or four proxies as a result of that abuse). Give it a couple of months and see if he gets the message, but right now Barber is causing substantially more pain than the OWW site gives benefit to the project. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:42, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You could always contact OWW and explain the situation, they might be willing to remove Barber's columns to get off the blacklist. 81.155.77.73 00:40, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
You're seriously going to blacklist an entire site because of one spammer? 24.14.196.6 01:27, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
How come others can edit these articles? I have had to revert vandalism on several pages, and have had to remove the OWW link (or at least remove the www. part) in order to save it. How come these anon IP's were able to vandalize the page? I will contact OWW and ask them to remove his colimns. TJ Spyke 01:29, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
If it helps, I contacted the webmaster of OWW. He wasn't too happy about what Jonathan Barber did, and said he will e-mail JB about it and tell him this isn't acceptable. Whether he will remove JB's columns or not (he hasn't done a column since 2004) is unknown. TJ Spyke 09:19, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I agree with putting the site on the blacklist. It's a poor site, put together very haphazardly. It is full of spelling errors and isn't professional by any means. It's not an WP:RS and it's good for pics, but nothing else. Please keep it on the blacklist. 69.218.255.54 23:16, 14 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It IS a reliable site. It is very useful for bio info and PPV results (especially PPV results) since they are accurate. TJ Spyke 04:49, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
It IS NOT a reliable site. It does have solid info and pictures, but in the gist of it, it's just a fan site, and it is not put together well, there are lots of spelling errors and the articles' completeness is all over the place. I am glad that it is on the blacklist and hope it will remain there permanently. 69.209.117.130 00:51, 18 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
This is the webmaster from Obessedwithwrestling.com (Brad Dykens) -- I hope I'm doing this right... blacklisting OWW because of Jonathan Barber is like the MLB blacklisting the New York Yankees for something the bat boy did. Barber does not represent OWW, we merely posted a few of his columns back in 2004 (and rejected twice as many since then). He is one of literally thousands who have written columns for us in the last six years. This is a portion of the email I sent to the Wiki guy who emailed me. I invite him to post the entire email if he deems it appropriate. Thank you for your time.
Jonathan Barber told me this by email: "Hey Brad, to reiterate I (Jonathan Barber) haven't "vandalized" or "spammed" Wikipedia. At one point in 2006 I was a constructive editor if that's what you want to call it but quite honestly my "Internet wrestling fix" has decreased (to a large degree) due to real-life obligations."
He's lying to you, as he's done so many other times here; I ask you to look at this link [115]. The over ONE HUNDRED accounts that have been blocked. Or the history of these articles. [116] [117] [118], some of the many articles Barber has vandalized in an attempt to promote "Bleeding Was only Half the Job" and his columns. 24.62.82.234 04:51, 16 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Indeed. The obvious solution would be to remove the "few" columns of his from the site. Let's face it Barber has a less than steller reputation among wrestling fans and nobody really wants to read his columns, so just nuke them and then the blacklisting can hopefully be lifted. 81.155.177.63 11:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
I have received the following from Brad Dykens - and I am pretty sure it is him, since it's a reply to a message emailed to the site:
I am going to remove Jonathan Barber's columns; Not because of the Wiki issues, but because he has lied to me about being involved with this situation. As if I am supposed to believe he has enemies who go out of their way to publicize his work and his upcoming book. If this resolves the blacklist, then so be it, but like I said before - it doesn't matter to me if it's blacklisted or not.
I checked the site, the Barber links are now gone. I see no pressing reason not to remove OWW from the blacklist. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:30, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Request removal..

..of OWW from the Spam blacklist. This is absurd. A few instances of vandalism should not block a few hundred (thousand?) links from usage. While the site can do malice when spammed, it's not a blatent shock site or something that promotes itself heavily. Links need to be repaired and this being on the Spam blacklist is doing more harm than good. Moe Epsilon 00:40, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

I concurr. I don't see a real reason behind the removal - yes, the spammer is self-promoting his column, but the result of the listing is the disappearence of useful links to an article. BTW, someone on WP removed it under the pretense that it contained spyware. Is there any truth to this and would this require listing here? Str1977 19:05, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
As soon as the link is removed, the "spamming" or "vandalism" (as you call it; I call it a logical response to a double standard; Just because you don't like me doesn't mean that you can discriminate OWW's reputability as a source and considering pages written by person 1 a valid reference but pages written by person 2 an invalid reference) will return. Plus, there's always archive.org.198.138.41.54 19:30, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
No it won't. It was blackmailed because 1 person kept adding links to his columns there, those columns have since been removed by the sites webmaster. TJ Spyke 23:15, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Redux: 198.138.41.54, Jonathan Barber or I'm a monkey's uncle, is now pissed with OWW for removing his vanity crap as well, so wants to dump them in the shit. I suggest that the correct response is to ignore him, or probably mock his ridiculous overweening vanity, remove OWW from the blacklist and continue to block his pathetically obvious sockpuppets as they arise. Just zis Guy, you know? 23:22, 21 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Deleted duplicates

Latest comment: 17 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

On the belief that it takes less work to process a smaller file, I've deleted all the duplicates in the blacklist, reducing the page by 1 KB. --BRIAN0918 13:56, 13 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

hah, nice. Eagle 101 02:01, 24 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Zorpia

Latest comment: 17 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

Hi Eagle or Naconkantari, Those results are only from zorpia media wiki. When i typed only Zorpia i didn't see any spam results. I even typed Zorpia in Yahoo search and i still don't see any spam results. That proves that Zorpia doesn't have spam. I've never experienced spam on Zorpia. Zorpia doesn't even have pop-ups. I still want you to remove Zorpia.com from the spam blacklist. Please think about it. For us it's important to have Zorpia.com back on wikipedia. btw, how come hi5 is not on your blacklist? Everybody knows that hi5.com is infected with spam/spyware. Waiting for your reply.

Thanks

The search returned all of the mediawiki installations that the Zorpia domain has been spammed on. As this blacklist is used on many wikimedia installations, blacklisting it will protect not only Wikimedia's wikis but the wikis of many other people. Naconkantari 04:21, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply


And what can we do to have Zopia back on Wikipedia? Should we wait for some time or Zorpia.com will stay forever on the blacklist? (i'm just asking cause i don't know about these things)

If the Zorpia administrators can reduce the amount of spam generated from its domains, however they go about doing that, it is possible that the site can be removed from the blacklist in a few months. Naconkantari 07:16, 15 March 2007 (UTC)Reply

Thank you very much for the information Naconkantari!


Hello there Eagle and Naconkantari, I just wanted to tell you that you were right. Zorpia is being used for spam. The users still think that they removed Zorpia.com because it was not notable. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Deletion_review/Log/2007_March_12/Zorpia I told them that Zorpia is on the blacklist because of spam. Even some of the administrators still believe that Zorpia was banned because it was not notable. I'm a Zorpia user myself. The only ones that i talk to are the owners of the site cause they seem to understand the problem. They are working hard to remove the spam from their site. They already removed a lot of spam. I love the site so much. That's why i'm helping them. Now my question is... Am i right? Zorpia has been banned because of the spam or because it was not notable? I'll be waiting for your reply. (btw, sorry for disturbing you again)

  • I believe there are two separate issues. One is that the article on Wikipedia was deleted for lack of notability. The other is that the site was blacklisted due to spamming. Whether it was spamming of zorpia or spamming on zorpia and then using a link to zorpia to get the spam into WP -= or indeed if there is any real distinction between the two - I would not know. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)Reply
Retrieved from "https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=547875"