Talk:Spam blacklist

←Requests and proposals

Spam blacklist

Archives (current)→

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.

snippet for logging: {{/request|511585#section_name}}

If you cannot find your remark below, it has probably been archived at Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2007/01.

Proposed additions

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.

fxwords.com gocurrency.com forextradingllc.com

The following discussion is closed: done

There's a medium-sized linkspam effort against Wikipedia underway from "gocurrency.com", "fxwords.com" , and "forextradingllc.com" (the parent organization of these.)

• fxwords.com Wikipedia references(48 links)
• GoCurrency.com Wikipedia references (5 links)

These sites have no real content; they exist to draw Google and Yahoo pay per click traffic. GoCurrency sales pitch: "Advertise with us! One of the fastest growing websites in its category, GoCurrency traffic has increased by twelve times the amount from May through October of 2006. Get on board to reach a unique global audience of 690,000 unique users with 2 Million page views per month!" gocurrency.com/advertise-with-us.htm Fxwords is a glossary of financial terms, which gives them an excuse to link from Wikipedia for many of the words in their vocabulary.

Some editors are cleaning out the links, per a discussion in Village Pump, but a link block might be in order. (User Nagle on Wikipedia; having trouble logging on Meta.)--71.139.171.30 22:05, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. Please, don't give direct links to these sites, they make this page uneditable. MaxSem 23:04, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

We are not trying to spam Wikipedia. Yes we are adding links. But they are to decent additional definitions in the case of FX Words - if this is not wanted that is fine but too completely block us seems a little obsessive. GoCurrency provides travel information but more helpfully a free converter for people to use on their sites with other tools we have paid to get developed.

Hey, addition of unwanted links IS called spamming. See relevant policy. MaxSem 18:20, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

worldtopix.com

Ongoing, repeated spam across multiple pages on multiple projects from a number of different Southwestern Bell IPs. [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] ...you get the idea. —LX (talk, contribs) 10:12, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

You get the idea?????All those pages from worldtopix.com are HIGHLY RELEVANT to the content,and provide a lot of information not found on wikipedia.It is a contribution,not spam,obviously!!!So,what can be done to unblock worldtopix.com url on wikipedia?Please answer this question.Thank You.(worldtopix.com editor). 13 January 2007

Please see the section on links to be avoided in the English Wikipedia guideline on external links, particularly points one (there is no reason the information couldn't be found on Wikipedia, and I doubt you verified that it wasn't in the Swedish articles), three (please consider contributing beyond simply adding external links), and possibly five (my filtering kills the ads, but the source code gives the impression there might be quite a few of them). Then continue down to Advertising and conflicts of interest and read the sentence "You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, even if the guidelines otherwise imply that it should be linked." Read the section's main article on spam and how not to be a spammer and note point two and the point about adding the same link to many articles under point five.

I would also expect you to familiarise yourself with Swedish Wikipedia's views on external linking. (This may require you to learn Swedish first, which may seem harsh if it's a foreign language to you, but remember that you made the decision to add the links there, and when spamming in Rome...) In particular, note the bit that says that "svenskspråkiga webbplatser bör föredras framför sidor på andra språk" and "undvik att länka till webbplatser du själv har stark koppling till." Also note the bit on the appropriate number of external links.

—LX (talk, contribs) 17:24, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

wichm sites

Especially on the Dutch (nl) Wikipedia but also on the English (en), French (fr) and German (de) Wikipedia's someone anonymously (see [25], [26], [27], [28] and maybe other IP addressed too) or with the user name 'Wichm' (see [29] and [30]) has added several dozens of external links to his own pages on Internet starting with

www.xs4all.nl/~wichm 

or

members.chello.nl/a.wichmann  

On the Dutch Wikipedia in the last few months several people informed him on his talkpage ([31]) and the IP-talk page ([32]) that he shouldn't add external links to his own pages and that he should stop spamming Wikipedia. He was informed on January 4 on his talkpage that I would request these links to be added to the blacklist if he would continue spamming. On January 6 he replied that all his links are relevant. Even after I confronted him with the evidence that his links are labeled by the local wikipedians of Wikipedia's in these 4 languages as spam and/or not-relevant he keeps claiming that he only added a few links and those had additional value. In total the number of links to his pages is probably more like 50 instead of only a few! And on January 10 he again added a link to one of his pages. [33] So I think it is now time to add the following lines to the blacklist:

www\.xs4all\.nl\/\~wichm 
members\.chello\.nl\/a\.wichmann

to stop this spamming. Only on the nl-Wikipedia some 25 different articles were involved and on the en-Wikipedia the number is probably smaller but still significant. Protecting pages is therefore no option. - Robotje 12:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I just checked the English Wikipedia -- 38 links total today across a wide range of articles.

• en:Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam#cross-wiki spammer: xs4all.nl/~wichm and members.chello.nl/a.wichmann

I agree that the blacklist is the best way to stop him. Many thanks, Robotje -- we didn't even know this guy had broken into the kitchen until we saw your listing here. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

http://ibtimes.com

Chronic spamming by en:User:Dck7777, en:User:Wog7777, and a bit by en:User:70.18.40.105. Total 118 contributions, all linkspam, all took forever and a day to cleanup: after reviewing, every link that proceded pattern http://ibtimes... was linkspam, and has been removed: [34]. However, link with pattern http://www.ibtimes has quite a few valid links: [35]. I'm thinking it likely has something to do with how the link is placed to viewers on the outside vs. how they see them internally. Perhaps you could simply block http://ibtimes: it might be enough to slow the spammer down. -Patstuart 16:07, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

ghazporkindustrial.com

A site which hosts personal attacks on Wikipedia editors (including me), removed here [36], also spammed to my talk page and other places, some remain in archives [37]. Per ArbCom ruling we do not link to sites which attack Wikipedia editors, and this is not a source for anything anyway. --Just zis Guy, you know? 21:30, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. The given links are clearly unwanted, and a cursory check of the site did not give any indication there is much useful for Wikipedia c.s. to link. - Andre Engels 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

royalessence.com, medi-vet.com

Over many months, rosewater and dog pill peddlers spammed these links using 10 different accounts to many articles over a wide range of topics (from en:Rosewater to en:White Rose (oil field) to en:Sufami Turbo). Final warnings don't work -- spammer was at it again today within the last 24 hours. [38] See en:ET:WPSPAM#royalessence.com and .medi-vet.com for links to user talk pages, edit histories, etc. Also, check this out (registration required/discretion advised) [[39][40].

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:56, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Done. I can however not follow the link that you provided - et: is the language code for Estonian, so I am brought to et:WPSPAM, which does not exist. - Andre Engels 11:17, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry -- it was late when I typed that. It should have read en:WT:WPSPAM#royalessence.com and .medi-vet.com --A. B. ^(talk) 05:43, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

xrl.us

Automatic redirecting site similar to shorl.com used to bypass blacklistings. —LX (talk, contribs) 16:42, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Was already here. I fixed it, thank you. --.anaconda 01:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

abolishthegmc.blogspot.com

There has been a long-running dispute on a number of articles both extant and deleted in respect of a campaign by a small group of poeple to abolish the General Medical Council. The blog, abolishthegmc.blogspot.com, has been linked to the GMC article, two new POV forks created today, other articles on related matters. en:Talk:General Medical Council/Archive 1 shows the kind of thing. [41] is a typical edit, reverting removal of the blog for the umpteenth time. We've had to protect the GMC article in the past to stop this vandalism. Since the blog is tendentious in the extreme and is never ever going to be a reliable source for anything, I wonder if you wouldn't mind blacklisting it please. Just zis Guy, you know? 18:15, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

gentleurl.net and urlic.com

Automatic redirecting sites similar to shorl.com used to bypass blacklistings. —LX (talk, contribs) 05:02, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

www.declarationofindependents.net

Ad-riddled site added to numeorus articles, often by banned edit warrior en:User:JB196 and his many socks and IPs.

1. www.declarationofindependents.net linked from User talk:EthandeSade
2. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/187/homicideonmaff.html linked from Nelson Erazo
3. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/3pwcloses4gd.html linked from Pro-Pain-Pro Wrestling
4. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/awaaz.html linked from Azriael (wrestler)
5. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/chrisfeedback.html linked from Chris Candido
6. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/corinopcwst.html linked from Steve Corino
7. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/index1.html linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
8. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/todgordon.html linked from Tod Gordon
9. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/alex.html linked from Alex Shelley
10. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/roderickstrong.html linked from Roderick Strong
11. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/carnagecrew.html linked from Matt Knowles
12. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/rickyvega.html linked from Ricky Vega
13. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/machete.html linked from Ricky Vega
14. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/jaylethal.html linked from Jay Lethal
15. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/interviews/rf.html linked from Rob Feinstein
16. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/johnsu.html linked from John Stagikas
17. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/kevingoalreached.html linked from Kevin Matthews (wrestler)
18. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/nigelmcinterv.html linked from Nigel McGuinness
19. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/reviews/mic_reviews/mctapereviews/ecw112396.html linked from Mass Transit incident (ECW)
20. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/reviews/mic_reviews/mctapereviews/fh.html linked from Mass Transit incident (ECW)
21. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/specialsubmits/xpwhistory.html linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
22. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/specialsubmits/quebec.html linked from Jacques Rougeau
23. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/april.html linked from April Hunter
24. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/maff.html linked from Dan Lopez
25. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/johnwalters.html linked from John Stagikas
26. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/chrishero.html linked from Chris Hero
27. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/spotlight/cmpunk.html linked from CM Punk
28. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/tammy.html linked from Tammy Lynn Sytch
29. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/xpwbarberaug.html linked from Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/BooyakaDell
30. www.declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/xpwbarberaug.html linked from Tommy Dreamer

Cleaning this lot up now. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:17, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

makeminemarvel.com

From en-wiki: "The owner of http://www.makeminemarvel.com - which is an entirely non-notable blog is spamming various marvel comic pages from various ip addresses including this one. He has been doing this for 3-4 months and refuses to stop. He takes no notice of comments or warnings left on the various ip pages. I emailed him directly and he indicated that he has no intention of stopping. Can it be added to the spam blacklist? --Larry laptop 15:00, 14 January 2007 (UTC)" --Majorly 15:26, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposed removals

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.

Middlesell

\.middlesell\.com

My name is Jared Fausnaught and I propose that this be removed from the Spam blacklist. I am one of the managers for Middlesell.com. Our website is not a spam site, it is a student portal. Please see for yourself.

Also, I would like to know why this was originally added here in the first place.

Regards, Jared

If you're bored, here are a few of many links you could peruse:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Dec#University_of_Mary_Washington
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Dannyisme#.22Right_to_Vanish.22_abused
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:67.131.148.171
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:A._B.#University_of_Mary_Washington
• http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=Analyzethis
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.70.130
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.71.54
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.74.57
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/199.111.85.50
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/67.131.148.171
• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/68.202.109.43

--A. B. ^(talk) 06:29, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

kunstmarkt.com

Has been blocked upon a request saying that it were a commercial site (a lie), and there were too many links to it (too many being about 50) in the Wikipedia.

This is not a commercial site. It exists for more than a decade, and its content was always free, is free, and will remain free, as one of the makers told me. Unlike typical commercial news and newspaper portals, they never expire/delete their aticles. There is no comparable source (by size and depth of coverage) about art, artwork, artists, museums, exhibitions, etc. online in German language.

Imho, only about 50 links from the WP to a site having hundreds of thousends of free articles on paintings, artists, etc. etc. is really not too much. Disallowing such links completely, appears insane to me. --Purodha Blissenbach 11:02, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually I agree with Purodha Blissenbach, in this case I strongly disagree. Kunstmarkt purpose is to sell art. The pictures there are not free, but under copyrights. It's a sad situatiion that we have such strong copyright-laws on photographs of art and I understand the problems wiki-contributers have. Nevertheless, Wikipedia is not a link-container, therfore kunstmarkt has to stay on the list. --Hedwig in Washington 09:53, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kunstmarkt.com does not sell art. They do sell advertizing space to art exhibitors, galleries, and the like. Of course what they publish is copyrighted, and free. This is the exact same situation of Wikipedia articles, which are copyrighted, and free. So where's the problem? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. even if they were selling art, what is the problem linking to one or another of their excellent artists bios, which are free, and granted to stay as long as the Website exists? --Purodha Blissenbach 10:31, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

It's a 100% commercial site, that's what I say. I really have a big problem with commercial website that have 50 entries on one(!) Wikipedia. We do not provide advertising webspace. That's not what I'm working for. And you are a hardcore-wikipedian, you know how much crap is already in "our" articles. We need to maintain high standards, otherwise we'll be nothing else than myspace, ebay or the yellow pages. Regarding the bios, it's our work to write an article about an artist, not generating a stub in the Wikipedia and linking to external information that we should provide. --Hedwig in Washington 11:10, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree on better having own quality articles in the Wikipedias than links. When there is no one (up to now) who writes such an article, or when there is another ressource having (a considerable amount of) material for further reading, an image galley, etc., then there is no point in not linking to it - wether or not the site offering it is considered commercial by some or not - as long as its content is free, reliable, and good. If we are not even ruling links out because target sites are doublessly commercial, such as http://mircosoft.com/ or http://ibm.com/ or http://daimler-chrysler.com/ , even less can we generally forbid links to pages which are non-commercial, or at best dispudely commercial sites. We DO provide advertizing space. Recently there was an advert of a record company to be found on the top of all pages of all wikimedia foundation supported wikies, alongside with an advert fo the Wikimedia Foundation. Also noone, or at least not me, would not put any blame on you, if you did not suggest http: /kunstmarkt.com/ pages for further or supplementary reading in articles authored by you. But your intent to disallow the same for all other authors of all Wikimedia wikies, based on personal prejudice as it appears to me, is counterproductive and detrimental to the value of Wikipedia as a ressource for free information. --Purodha Blissenbach 12:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

The good news is, that both of us try to improve quality. The microsoft/daimler/whatsoever-links are not good examples. That's different. Maybe you have a look on the DE-Wikipedia where I deleted all most of the kunstmarkt links. You'll see that most of the articles are stubs or better stubs. The people go the easy way and that's another point. You are right, prejudice is counterproductive, but how's free of that. My decision to ask for further blocking is based on WP:WEB, the articles where the link has been and the website kunstmarkt itself. I do not try to fight for an old decision I made to have look like I was right then. It's not that I want to harm the kuinstmarkt guys or Wikipedia. For Wikipedia I try to do all I can to make it a better one. --Hedwig in Washington 13:32, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Reading the above arguments makes me regard this blocking even more questionable. You didn't only remove "most of the kunstmarkt links" - you deliberately cut off each and every editors freedom to insert such links in any of the wikimedia wikies. Removing links to (usable) external ressources from stub articles serves the purpose of excessively downgrading the use of such articles for everyone. Readers now do not even find wanted information elsewhere. Editors of little knowledge willing to improve the article are deprived easy access to some of the information they should need to know. Editors who did not have the ressources to make a better article, but want to keep a note for others, likely feel set back when their effords are being wasted, and maybe leave the Wiki again in frustration. As I said, I don't mind when such a link is removed when it became superfluous after a stub article evolved, and the place a link points to isn't offering additonal information any more. I do mind global blocking of a useful ressource for everyone on every wiki based upon no real ground. Blocking is a countermeasure to linkSPAMming, i.e. excessive and/or unrelated, likely automated, mass-insertion of links. It has to be a last-resort type of decision, because otherwise editors freedom would be hampered. With about 50 articles in a half million+ having links to pages of a specialized thematic website of comparable size (332600 pages according to Google) I think you cannot speak of masses of links, and you never sugested, these links were made automatically, for ill reasons, nor that they were totally useless. So removing the blackmailing and restoring editors choices is imho the only sensitive solution. --Purodha Blissenbach 16:02, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Kunstmarkt.com is a news site. There is no organised spam from this site to be found. --88.76.209.112 23:30, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

A few sites

#These sites are redirecting requests from Wikimedia sites to a third-party site\.
\.namebase\.org
wikipedia-watch\.org    
google-watch\.org       
cia-on-campus\.org      
\.scroogle\.org
yahoo-watch\.org

I came across an article with these external links that weren't links, then viewed the source to see why. They are listed as <nowiki>, and the Talk page has a discussion about them being here because they redirect. However, after clicking the links from an editing preview page, they don't redirect. Regardless of whether we agree with the content of the links, I don't see why they should be blacklisted, since the reason they're blacklisted is not (at least now) the case. Nathanm mn 00:50, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

A news article reports that MSN Messenger is blocking www.scroogle.org. If true, could MSN be importing the spam blacklist? What are the liability implications for the Foundation if a domain is on this list that cannot accurately be described as spam? 216.60.70.68 01:27, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Request denied (again) - same reasons as before. Raul654 22:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

What reasons? The stated one on the Spam blacklist is wrong. They don't redirect requests from Wikimedia, I tested it. Nathanm mn 02:34, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Nathan, please be aware that any link to these sites on enwiki would be immediately reverted, and any editor repeatedly inserting or re-inserting them would be blocked from editing and most likely permanently banned. This is per ArbCom ruling. Just zis Guy, you know? 14:55, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Why are they still blacklisted though, when they no longer redirect? And technically, they are not spam. --Majorly 14:58, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

hkmrr.hk.ohost.de/rundbrief.htm

Used in de:Rainer Riehn. Can't see what's wrong with that page, seems to be an application form to a reliable newsletter. --85.180.179.248 23:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

ohost.de is being used by spammers as well. You might try whitelisting on http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_Diskussion:Spam-whitelist. (No decision yet, if another admin does want to remove this from the blacklist, they have my blessing) - Andre Engels 11:42, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

www.animals-pictures-dictionary.com

This site is in the blacklist for a long time, it was used in many articles. I think its a good animals information website, and it surly doesn't belong to the blacklist. 16:08, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2006_Archive_Sep#Spam_or_not_spam.3F for the background on these people. --A. B. ^(talk) 18:35, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Yes I've seen it already.

• Many sites have links from more than 16 articles.
• Many sites have AdSense... Even more agressive from this one.
• For searching animals pictures, the site is very useful (with all due respect, in my opinion, google images is not the best place to search images...)
• There are exactly 2 articles that are parts of a Wikipedia article in the "Domestic Cats" section, and both of them have links to the original.
• The site has some useful articles that can be added to wikipedia as more info to the surfer.

I've seen many spam sites that don't belong here, I believe this site shouldn't be one of them...

Not done - first specify a specific page and a specific link you want to put there, then I will consider. Not out of the blank. - Andre Engels 19:19, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

OK my friend, for example:

Animals Article:

• Animals Pictures and Information - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com
• Animals useless facts - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/415-1
• Creating new breeds - Frizzle chicken - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/297-1

Snakes Article:

• Dealing with non-venomous snake bites - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/408-1
• Treating and Preventing Venomous Snakes Bites - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/rec/382-1
• Venomous Snakes breeds info - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/cat/18-Snakes-Venomous/
• Non-Venomous Snakes breeds info - http://www.[remove this]animals-pictures-dictionary.com/cat/17-Snakes-Non-Venomous/

I couldn't add these links without changing the url to a fake one... so please remove the "[remove this]"...

I can give more examples but i think thats enough...

Not done Looks to me like 'where can I add a link to this site on Wikipedia', not 'where can I find a good link for this Wikipedia article'. In other words, spam. Given the reason for the addition, I need more convincing reasons to remove it. - Andre Engels 16:12, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

TVRage.com

I requested this a couple months ago to be removed from the Blacklist.[42] I thought the original request was laughable and unfair.[43]. His response was "Spammed on a daily basis to lots of articles, its owner has also admited to spamming it." It was spammed? All articles with links to the site were completely relevant, and had just as much right to be in the article as the TV.com links. I thought the purpose of the lniks were to add other sites that gave more about it's subject. Just because TVRage was an article that has been deleted off of Wikipedia (something I disagreed at the time, but now that I understand the policies more clearly see that the site wasn't notable, and didn't meet en:WP:Web. I don't think that should decide whether or not the site is a "spam" site or not. The links weren't added on a daily basis. To "lots of articles"? So? Unless they were irrelevent, I don't see a big issue that couldn't be discussed on the Talk Page. The "owner admitted spamming it"? Um, that guy wasn't an owner. He was just affiliated with the site. Right here- h t t p : / / t v r a g e . c o m / p r o f i l e s / J o h n Q . P u b l i c / b l o g s / ? v t i m e = 2 0 0 6 1 1 2 2 (remove spaces) you can see that he left. He was shortly banned from Wiki, and is no longer associated with the site. I see no issue with him. This site isn't constantly spammed. I admit to adding a couple links to sites with no links at all, so I thought it could improve the article at anycase. (I discuss on Talk Pages now when it comes down to External Links). I really want the opinions of others, not a simple "REJECTED" See here where it was requested. I have see where it was. I read it. Links to two articles where an indef. blocked user spammed isn't a very good excuse. --Linalu24 20:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

prv.pl

Hello there. I recently wanted to update my user page and... tahdah! the entire domain of prv.pl seems to be blacklisted (and so is my former personal site of http://halibutt dot prv dot pl. The problem is that the www.prv.pl is simply a free-of-charge domain provider, perhaps the most popular in Poland ([http://www.google.pl/search?q=prv.pl&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:pl:official&client=firefox-a 2 million hits in Google). Hence the prv.pl suffix is used by, I guess, some 1 in every 4 home pages in Polish. I know some of them might include some malicious codes or something nasty, but blacklisting the entire domain is equal to blacklisting pretty much of the entire Polish internet. Regards, Halibutt

P.S. It's not a major problem for me since I moved to halibutt.pl, but I guess it might be a problem for many more people, especially when it comes to citing sources from such sites.

Troubleshooting and problems

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).

artnet.de

please unblock (first of all all magazine-articles): artnet sometimes has excess value, e.g. artnet.de/magazine/features/brauneis/brauneis06-30-06.asp -> great article & songs from the artist. there is no reason to block such an interesting page..!?!! 138.246.7.114 20:37, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Partially done. I have restricted the block to only artnet.de/artist - Andre Engels 11:06, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Other discussions

• Spam blacklist policy discussion

QUESTION

I just did an edit to a page -- and was informed that it could not be posted because there was supposedly a blacklisted link. I had not added ANY links in my minor edit, and the link specified did not show up anywhere on the page when I searched for it. What's the problem ?? Davilance 18:59, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

This means that this article already contains a blacklisted link. To be able to save this page, you'll have to remove that link. Actually, MediaWiki tell you which link triggered the spam filter along with error message: The following text is what triggered our spam filter: blah blah blah. MaxSem 19:19, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Sledtv.org

Was curious as to what happened to the sledtv.org site, then i saw that it had been blacklisted, did a little poking around and never saw any removals but one and no infractions, warings etc, why was this blacklisted? I believe it should not be, and should be reversed