Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2006-10

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Proposed additions


Universe Daily --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  08:05, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Korg + + 12:11, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Universe Daily again

Hi again, could you please sychronise the blacklist against the 65+1 domains currently listed at en:Wikipedia:Long_term_abuse/Universe_Daily. From now on, we'll be adding newly discovered domains to his long term abuse report by date to help you guys update this list in future. Thanks --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For archival purposes, please list the domains on this page. Thanks Naconkantari 22:30, 21 September 2006 (UTC) --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:33, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done added by Naconkantari. Korg + + 12:04, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Used by persistent linkspammer on en-Wikipedia - en:user:Universe Daily. See en:Talk:Bindi Irwin, en:Steve Irwin, en:Terri Irwin, en:Bob Irwin, en:Australia Zoo. Please blacklist. -- I@n 15:00, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Actually, please expand that request to these also:

as all are regularly added by the same listspammer. -- I@n 00:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

    • And some more: Thanks -- I@n 03:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 03:17, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
For the record, is his admission of his intent to vandalise wikipedia. -- I@n 03:25, 20 September 2006 (UTC)


Is it possible to restrict * with an exception for I am removing YTMNDs from articles on a daily basis, almost always containing copyvio soundtracks and having no actual relevance to the subject. See this example: [1]. If this is not possible I will keep scanning. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:23, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case must be added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. For en-wp you can request it here. Of course if all subdomains really should be blacklisted and are blacklisted. MaxSem 09:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
We currently have only two YTMNDs blacklisted, unfunnytruth and unfunnysequel. The two problems I'm having right now are (a) insertion of YTMND links into mainstream articles, often these have copyvio soundtracks and in any case it's not like YTMND is Saturday Night Live; and (b) the use of individual YTMNDs as cited sources in articles such as ebaumsworld - these are not admissible as sources, but no matter how often they get removed someone puts them back. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
I disagree, since there are several highly notable YTMNDs that should be linked to from the YTMND article because of their relevant history to the site as a whole. These include the original YTMND, the Picard YTMND, any YTMND referenced mentioned in the media (and several reliable sources, including CNN and the New York Times, have brought up YTMNDs) and maybe the Bauman Letters Dramatic Reading YTMND. Although I agree that random YTMND insertion into articles is vandalism. Crazyswordsman.
We already link to the YTMND wiki. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Why block theunfunnytruth? I don't understand what would be wrong with it... 21:15, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The theunfunnytruth (I believe) would be a most beneficial lnk for the Scientology article. You can clearly see the refrences for the information at the end and it does not "make up" information to criticize the Sci Church.
This is a view which has been robustly rejected by editors of that article. 13:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
I was thinking of putting a new section in Scientology_controversy after 'External Links', called 'External Links which reference this Wikipedia article', and putting the unfunnytruth ytmnd in there. It would be a reciprocal link because unfunnytruth references that specific Wikipedia entry. It would also be appropriate because most of the page views coming to that page are from presumably previous viewers of that ytmnd because of its popularity. Fame begets fame. Actual link would be titled 'Unfunny[sic] Truth' and description would say 'Major contributor to the current controversy'. Sounds good, no?
Based on ongoing difficulties with YTMND sites, I would suggest wikis who need to link to such a site add that site to their whitelist, and the complete * be added to Spam blacklist. - Amgine / m | n 03:11, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
Hmm, we'll have to do some work[2] before blacklisting. MaxSem 06:09, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Indeed. I don't mind doing it, either. I think that www. is OK for the site and a few related articles, but any other YTMND added is almost invariably spam. Another ten out of mainspace today, including the Unfunny Truth, which appears to have been linked despite being blacklisted. Just zis Guy, you know? 09:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • As of today there are four links to ytmnds other than www. or wiki. [3]. Of those only one is in main space, and the source for its inclusion is too blurred to be readable (although it's repeated in text on one of the two linked sources). Just zis Guy, you know? 13:13, 15 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, we need an en.wp sysop to whitelist and BTW, is there a way to redirect a user to subdomains from MaxSem 07:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
After a lot of work and some lengthy discussions on the en:YTMND talk page I think we have reached the point where I can bring a proposal here. As you know, YTMND is a popular website and we have an article on it which discusses some of the "fads" it generates. There is, however a problem with linking direct to YTMNDs as (a) they often use a Flash preloader (contrary to external link guidelines on active content requiring external players); (b) many of the soundtracks are copyright violations (contrary to external link guidelines on copyrighted content) and (c) they are constantly added to mainspace by fans, despite often being of little or no importance (e.g. en:Pi, [4]).
There appears to be a consensus at en:Talk:YTMND that in discussing fads we should link to the YTMND wiki article on the fad (which avoids both the active content and the copyright issue). We have already blocked two YTMNDs for being spammed to the project, and what I'd like to suggest, to save the daily lnksearch and prune tedium, is to blacklist * and whitelist and This will prevent the prolific spamming of YTMNDs either by good faith but misguided fans, or by those aiming to promote fads for googlebombing purposes (as we saw with the unfunny truth fad), it will prevent things like the problems we had with en:safety when the Safety Not Guaranteed fad was doing the rounds (or at least mitigate the problem), it might help to avert another en:Brian Peppers fiasco and I think will improve the project and also the image of the many good YTMND members who are editors here, since all YTMNDers tend to get tarred with the same brush as each new fad is spammed. Just zis Guy, you know? 08:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Added to the EN Wikipedia white-list at [5]. Zscout370 02:24, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks. So, can we add the balance to the blacklist now? I rmoeved another four YTMNDs from mainspace articles today. Just zis Guy, you know? 12:31, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done you're the dog now, man! MaxSem 12:59, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

spam, spam and spam again of a website vaguely related to creativity, offering a commercial service of ideas protection. User is in write-only mode --Jollyroger 09:41, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC) and

Spamvertised by zombies.[6] It may be prudent to add some more regexps for debt consolidation spam, at least for related terms under Blogspot, as it seems to be emerging as a host of choice for zombie spammers. LX (talk, contribs) 05:39, 17 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done as (debt|financ|loan|morgage).*\ // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued spamming of posts from this "blog" by various IPs (their only edits): [7], [8], [9], [10]. Trying to keep up with switching IPs, starting to block them, and there might be more... -- 13:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Repeated spamming on en-wiki by users Jsmorse47, Cochese8 and of course many anons leading to a couple of ugly edit wars and clashes with the spam patrols. For a quick overview see [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] Jsmorse in fact admits he is Joe Morse the co-owner of the website and all links introduced either relate to Joe Morse's book on dieting or his business as a logo creator. Pascal.Tesson 03:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

In addition to the accounts Pascal mentioned above (Jsmorse47, Cochese8,, and, I would add and The IPs appear to be around the San Diego area, and the website is registered to a "Morse, Joseph cochese8@[removed].com" at a San Diego address. A couple of the links have been the subject of extensive discussion with no significant support for the links aside from Cochese8 and Jsmorse47; see w:en:Talk:Basal metabolic rate and w:en:Talk:Logo. Wmahan 03:59, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Again in es.wikipedia the spambot attacked RSS and anothers articles of links from plone [18]. Please. --Taichi - (あ!) 05:55, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Repeated, persistent linkspamming on en:Brainstorming, en:Idea, en:Creativity techniques, en:Inspiration Software, en:Personal knowledge management, well, you get the idea. Fan-1967 15:14, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC),,, and

Further domains used by link spamming vandal, Universe Daily. See en:Wikipedia:Long term abuse/Universe Daily. -- Longhair 07:29, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

  • Added one to Longhair's request. -- Wmahan 14:46, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC),

and probably others, for example: [*] (subdomains), IP fr:Special:Contributions: has added, today, hundreds of links to in two pages, see [19], [20], [21] and [22]. After searching on WP-EN, same IP en:Special:Contributions: has also added wonderful spamlinks in the same manner, for example [23]. Spambot also seems to work on WP-DE (de:Special:Contributions/, WP-ES (es:Special:Contributions/, WP-NL (nl:Special:Contributions/ and probably many others. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 14:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

please, blacklist them. Phe 15:05, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 13:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Spammed by (and on sv) and (sv). LX (talk, contribs) 16:51, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Continues to be spammed, most recently from[24] Block these, please? LX (talk, contribs) 19:36, 30 September 2006 (UTC)[25] LX (talk, contribs) 19:52, 30 September 2006 (UTC) Add to the list as well. Please let me know what I can do to speed up action being taken on this. It's causing a lot of unnecessary work. LX (talk, contribs) 04:31, 1 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done as (?:cup|league|football|wayne|premiership|steven|united).*years\.com. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some users added multiple links to this site on fr.wikipedia in the beginning of year 2006, in multiple articles that had basically nothing to do with the content of the site (a local martial arts dojo, absolutely not notorious). We reverted them and they were quiet for some time, but apparently they just restarted their spams... before I become crazy reverting them, please add to the spam blacklist. -Ash Crow 17:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

By the way, I see that they also sometimes use another address with links to same website, Thanks to blakclist both. -Ash Crow 17:27, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
And another one: -Ash Crow 08:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done by Eloquence. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:57, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

A user keeps switching IP addresses to add spam links to (full of ads and low quality pictures) to the English Wikipedia, most recently to en:Rocky Mountain National Park. See this village pump entry. Also see this, this, this, and this for more of the back story. This has been happening since February. We removed the links after a debate. But now the person has given up his username in exchange for a seemingly unlimited supply of IP addresses. Nationalparks 23:29, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes please add this. It is pure advertising spam with some pictures so it looks like it isn't. Fighting hundreds of these since Feb. is getting tiresome. Pschemp 19:41, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC) and and have spammed the sonikmatter wiki.

Revision history can be seen here

The Puppeteer 11:16, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 13:21, 29 September 2006 (UTC),,,

Spamming on Jmol wiki, on the Talk:Main_Page. -- NicoV 07:18, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, except for Naconkantari 01:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

From Global Voices wiki

The following links have been integrated into the Spam blacklist log. These were spammed to the Global Voices wiki.


Yes check.svg Already done, just listed here for the record. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

repeated longterm spamming of this address by dynamic IPs. Is spammed across several language Wikipedias as well. See this thread at the en WikiProject Spam for details. AbsolutDan 01:25, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 22:16, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is currently blocking many non spam sites.... ...

I agree. It's blocking the non-spam, non-advertising, site of a programmer I referenced with no connection to spam at all. What exactly was the problem? 16:42, 10 September 2006 (UTC) PS: I did not write the text above "I agree," that looks like an unsigned comment. 16:44, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
The Steampunk entry has some valid and useful links pointing to and sub-pages. Thus the spam filter is preventing lossless updates. 04:17, 29 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:46, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Longterm spamming of * sites on it.wikipedia. These are at most fan forums. Last round, today by 1 anonymous user. I'll remove the others in Special:Linksearch late today. --.anaconda 22:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 17:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hip Hop spam

There is some rapant hip-hop spam by AOL and regular IPs that I'm still cleaning up. I blocked the spam AOL range but it would likely comeback, example edit [26]. JAranda | watz sup 02:27, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Please list the links here. Are these the only ones you need blacklisted?
// [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 02:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yea those are the ones. JAranda | watz sup 03:26, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 03:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Appeared sometimes on French Wikipédia, as in [27] and (only for French sysops) in fr:Special:Undelete/Bulletin Board System/, with IP's and (the last already blocked as open proxy on WP-EN). Maybe this link will appear on other Wikimedia projects. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 03:32, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. guillom 07:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Redirection site used to evade blacklist and for spamming (e.g. [28]) Just zis Guy, you know? 22:52, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 23:25, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

For me, it's the same botmaster who uses already addresses as (see above). Comes very often, on French Wikipedia, on pages with titles ending with slash (last time: fr:Special:Undelete/Bulletin Board System/, this time: fr:Special:Undelete/Phorum/wiki/Phorum/). Thanks. Hégésippe | ±Θ± 00:55, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 03:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

A permanently blocked user has been trying to place his original research on dewiki for months, latest here and here.-- 12:07, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Just to clarify, but what is the page about? (I assume it's the homepage of the company, but just wanted to make sure.) Is it a widespread problem? Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:21, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's unrelated to the commercial pages. This guy just uses his company's hp as webspace for his OR. It's about all cosmic rays originating from the sun and some analogy to thunderstorms. He's kind of wandering about, starting with number theory, then silly counterexamples to the four-color theorem, then moons, now cosmic radiation. Mostly, he's using dynamic IPs so he can't be blocked effectively. He's very interested in placing links to his site on his countless user pages, so it's kind of spam, but I myself are not 100% convinced this is the right place.-- 19:18, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
I've added scheerer-software\.de to the blacklist. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

They've gone a little bit too far: they publish logs from IRC channels whic if unambiguously prohibited. See discussion here. Since they're causing a lot of trouble (remember Everyking's desysopping?), I s'ppose we should blacklist this site mercilessly. Any thoughts? MaxSem 14:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

When I saw this comment, I was like "huh? Aren't they already blacklisted?" And yes, they were - until Pathoschild removed them in this ill-advised edit a few days ago. I have restored them now. Raul654 14:26, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Pathoschild removed them because Brandt's sites stopped redirecting months ago. Raul654 restored them, calling Pathoschild's edit "ill-advised," and also restored the inaccurate comment that Brandt's sites are redirecting. Therefore, Raul654's edit is based on a lie, whereas Pathoschild's edit is based on the truth. Pathoschild also queried a couple of IRC channels before taking action, and heard no objections. Raul654 acted on impulse, and didn't consult anyone. Now I ask you, who is "ill-advised" -- Pathoschild or Raul654? 20:51, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
Per guidance from Foundation, we should not link to sites which directly attack or violate the privacy of Wikipedia editors. This seems like a reasonable rule to me; I guess the reason could be changed for clarity but the fact of it being blacklisted is I hope generally accepted as prudent. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:18, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please see [29] Notinasnaid 18:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've blacklisted free-game-downloads.mosw\.com. For the record, see the current discussion's permanent link. —[admin] Pathoschild 21:48, 11 October 2006 (UTC)


Sorry, i'm "En-0" ... but if you could see that [[30]] ...

I do not have time to destroy that 10 times per day :

Can you do something for me and "fr.wikipedia" ? -- 07:06, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Any other articles affected? Probably, semiprotection could help? MaxSem 07:13, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
In particular fr:Pêche à la mouche (flyfishing) ... but what is "semiprotection" ? -- 07:24, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The answer is yes, that could help. -- 01:17, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Erotic/"pinup" online bookstore that keeps getting linkspammed by anons on unrelated article (en:Color Climax Corporation) with no explanation on how it's relevant. Repeated requests for explanation of link have gone unanswered. Fan-1967 13:44, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 21:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Some spambot are (now 3 days) flooding talk pages on it.wikipedia. The spam URL is I reverted/removed the edits on it.wikipedia, but I see it is also spammed on en.wikipedia: . I'd suggest to black list that domain, but maybe the word "cialis" can be black listed too. --.anaconda 02:47, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 16:02, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

It is already on the spam blacklist at Wikia. This site has been spammed all around Wikipedia both in articles and in emails. It has attack articles on many Wikipedia administrators. Ask in the "administrators noticeboard" if you need more convincing. Tawl 05:38, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Could you provide some links / diffs please? guillom 07:53, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
linksearch currently shows 336 links. Might reduce in the next hour or so... Also on ca:, nl:, es:, dv:, but only in a small way. It looks very much as if ArbCom on en: are going to blanket ban the site with enforcement against anyone who links it. Just zis Guy, you know? 15:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
  • Note: ED is not on the blacklist at present but links to ED are banned on en: by ArbCom. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:14, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 06:23, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Spammed on a daily basis to lots of articles, its owner has also admited to spamming it. (Examples from today: [31], [32]) MatthewFenton 13:02, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Continually spammed to Mortgage-related articles, always from different dynamic IP addressess. Usually "drive by" spamming with each IP address used once or twice before moving to the next one, so blocking is not effective. The Mortgage article has been hit three times in the last 24 hours and many, many times in the last month: [33], [34], [35] Gwernol 18:45, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 18:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

and and - these links are frequently spamed into Lost related articles over at en, it is a non notable website however people are frequently directed to add it (with even there SysOps adding it) - There article has also been deleted 5 times and salted twice and DRVd once before, blacklsiting the above URLs may help cut down on the trolling occuring as well (example diffs: [36], [37]) MatthewFenton 12:14, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done guillom 12:25, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

I have moved the following statement from my talk page. If any other sysop is aware of this case, please do what you should do. guillom 10:36, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

MatthewFenton, the requester of this blacklisting has a vendetta against Lostpedia after being banned from the site. His request is not made in good faith. The link to is not currently on the Lost (T.V. Series) page, and is being discussed on the article's discussion page. This is an editorial disagreement, not spam. Thanks, --Jabrwocky7 22:09, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
I see no evidence of Lostpedia spamming Wikipedia. This blacklist is preventing the ongoing discussion at w:Talk:Lost (TV series)/Fansites so I'm removing it. Oh, and before anyone accuses me of a conflict of interest, I don't host Lostpedia. Angela 09:43, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
I really don't see that the site has been spammed or that it isn't a contributive site. In any case, it should at least be off the blacklist for hte duration of the debate about fansites. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC),

Universe Daily linkspammer
Two more domains belonging to Wayne Smith (check via WHOIS) have popped up on our radars.


--  Netsnipe  (Talk)  07:53, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:37, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

A shock/javascript attack site that has been spammed on Wikipedia by vandals [38]-- 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:33, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Latest linkspambot on en-wiki. Ryulong 03:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Added by Naconkantari. —[admin] Pathoschild 04:10, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Universe_Daily again. --  Netsnipe  ►  19:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Flcelloguy (A note?) 00:45, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkspam from AOL accounts. [39], [40], [41] and [42] Thanks. ~Kylu (u|t) 20:51, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:40, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Not done

Other good Lists

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools, not for all spam. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add this URL. On es.wiktionary a user created entries containing this URL. Those were deleted es:wikt:Especial:Log/delete
In these entries he added also:


Many thanks in advance, greetings --birdy geimfyglið (:> )=| 13:48, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A persistent user from a pool of IPs has been inserting this link to numerous pages relating to Indian classical music [43], [44]. This is a forum website with Google adsense and does not offer anything pertinent to the articles. I have waned the user to stop this activity, but the insertion is still going on. I have spent most of themorning rolling back these inserts. I have no other option but to request blacklisting this website. - Venu62 03:27, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

It is a site that is very pertinent to Carnatic Music. My only mistake was that I gave the link to the homepage instead of to the exact page that contained the relevant information. Since I dont have much experience with wikipedia's conventions I was not aware that my actions constituted spam. I have now started giving the exact page-links that pertain to the topic. Hope I am not penalized for this.
X mark.svg Not done; the user's comment indicates good faith, and there has been no followup to demonstrate otherwise. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A spambot clean some articles in es.wikipedia and add spam, example: [45] --Taichi - (あ!) 06:55, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued spamming on the dutch wikipedia on Britney Spears by various IPs. FANSTAR 11:57, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Continued spamming in the spanish wikipedia on es:RSS and another articles by various IPs. Example:, always this spambot add in the Resume "Unknown".

X mark.svg Not done; both the English Wikipedia and the Spanish Wikipedia cite a number of sites hosted on that domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This was previously declined, but the roving IP spammer is back and spamming Kasur. See [46]]. Since the IP spammer appears to ignore all warnings, I request the blacklisting of his/her site. Range block is not practical due to collateral damage. Similarly, IPs make productive edits to article, so semi-protection would not be a good thing. --Nlu 07:13, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A page about JavaScript has been created on Jmol wiki (, so totally unrelated to the wiki with links to a site about a commercial JavaScript editor, I deleted the page. -- NicoV 09:30, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:34, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This link has been spammed on the English Wikipedia by sockpuppets of a banned vandal. Its only contents are a request that the user's original account, "Trouserwonky" be unblocked and that users stating on their pages that they also want the account unblocked.-- 23:40, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This link is being spammed on the Spanish Wikipedia since june aprox. but nowadays is getting worse, and every day it's added on several pages. Gothmog 15:05, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Please provide supporting diff links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:53, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Roving IPs from the 62.74.48.x range (registered to Greek ISP Panafonet) constantly bombards en:Santorini with spam links to the site. Warnings were of no help, and the spammer either seems to not "get it" or is doing it despite the constant removal of the spam link. (See [47].) Request a blacklisting. --Nlu 15:25, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Conspiracy spammers

X mark.svg Not done; broken link, no description of the problem, no signature, no supporting diff links. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 05:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The title sais it all. Example of spam.--Piotrus 01:43, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. You have not provided any links suggesting that is the case. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC) and

Spam links repeatedly added to multiple en: articles over the span of many months, e.g. [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] --Stormie 06:26, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. The links you've provided only show one IP address or range, which can be blocked. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient or unfeasible. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The webmaster of this website has been linking to it from more than 50 wikipedia pages since September 28. What's more, the website displays ads and is Google monetized... fr:Utilisateur:Enro 10:04, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

This won't probably be necessary. The spammer is new here and seems reasonable. A little chat should enough. Thanks. Eden2004 12:46, 2 October 2006 (UTC) Sysop on :fr
OK, I agree. Sorry for having reacted so abruptly but it seems that the intimidation had some effect... Thanks. fr:Utilisateur:Enro 12:51, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

A spambot keeps adding links to this website on the dutch wikipedia, could it be put on the spam blacklist? Thanks, SanderK 10:09, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you provide some links? Thanks. Flcelloguy (A note?) 13:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no followup from the requesting user. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I first saw this being added to Neneh Cherry[54]. This is no big deal as spam goes, but it strikes me that a site whose reason to exist is to host petitions has almost no valid use in Wikipedia because Wikipedia:Wikipedia is not a soapbox. (The only exception I can see would be Internet petition, which could perhaps usefully be excepted from a block if that is possible). [55] shows 26 other cases where this site is linked to for 14 separate campaigns (and one for internet petition as noted). Over to you.

Please try reverting/sprotection first, as there may be legitimate uses outside of Naconkantari 03:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:09, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The creator of this website (Jenny Jinya) is trying to add a link to its website in the french Jeanne d'Arc article, despite the fact it is a poorly automated-french-translated ones, which got reverted by many users and blocked many times for this reason. It appears that he do not intend to stop its spamming, so I think there is no other way than blacklisting it.

Some diffs: [56], [57], [58], [59], [60], [61], [62], [63].

Regards, Manchot 16:39, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, please try semiprotection first and return here if spamming continues Naconkantari 17:16, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, as you requested I semi-protected the article, but I'm not sure it'll be enough since the spammer also used an account ([64], [65]). Let's see ! :-)
Regards, Manchot 19:36, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

Madam, Sir, It is with consternation that we noticed that our website is in your blacklist, further to too many references on our behalf to Wikipedia. But it was all done in good faith. We offer information on Latin American countries and the cultural events they hold in France. Therefore, I thought, wrongly apparently, that it would be interesting for people consulting Wikipedia, especially the pages concerning Latin America, to have a link towards our site which handles cultural Latin news in France.

We are not a commercial site, we have no interest in using excessive techniques of mailing and over-referencing, as we also disapprove of them. We only send a newsletter once a month to our subscribers, so this is our sole visibility. We keep our subscribers' list up to date and systematically remove anyone who does not wish to receive our newsletter anymore from our mailing list.

We hope you will understand and we would really appreciate it if you could take our website off your blacklist.

Best regards

Carlos Obregón

Madame, Monsieur,

C'est avec consternation que nous constatons dans votre liste noire, "blacklist", la présence de l'adresse de notre site : Suite à un referencement exagéré de ma part sur Wikipédia. Mais cela était en toute bonne foi. Nous faisons un travail d'information relatif aux pays d'Amérique latine et ses manifestations culturelles en France. De ce fait j'ai estimé, à tort, qu'il serait intéressant pour les personnes consultant Wikipédia et ce dans toutes les pages concernant l'Amérique latine, d'avoir un lien vers notre site qui traite des actualités culturelles en France.

Nous ne sommes pas un site commercial, nous n'avons aucun intérêt à utiliser des techniques abusives de courrier et de referencement que bien évidemment nous reprouvons. Nous envoyons un unique message mensuel correspondant à notre parution. Nous tenons à jour une liste d'abonnés et nous retirons systématiquement de celle-ci toute personne ne désirant plus recevoir notre lettre mensuelle d'information.

Nous espérons compter avec votre compréhension et nous vous prions de supprimer de votre liste noire, "blacklist", l'adresse de notre site.

Bien cordialement.
Carlos Obregón
unsigned by Carlos Obregon (talk) 09:34, 10 October 2006

I've removed the link from the blacklist on an assumption of good faith. The relevant addition discussion occurred in May 2006. —[admin] Pathoschild 22:04, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, merci, gracias. :o) Carlos Obregón


A couple of months ago, I added a link to the external link section of the French page on Malaysia. This morning I'm finding out it has disappeared. When I attempted to restore it, I was shocked: it's blacklisted! is just a personal website presenting pictures of Malaysia. The only text content comes from... Wikipedia and Encyclopaedia Universalis - both sources being duly quoted as such -. I very much doubt Wikipedia and EU content can be considered as controversial or politically uncorrect, can it? So why on Earth was it blacklisted and how can it be removed from the blacklist? This looks very much like censorship (on which grounds by the way?).

Gilles Chertier, France

Please don't assume censorship if you don't know the reason it was blacklisted. The administrator who blacklisted the pattern is no longer active, the pattern is not listed in the Archives, and there is no explanatory comment. However, a search reveals it was placed at least once by a spam bot[1]. Since it does not appear to be a widespread problem, I've removed it from the blacklist. // —[admin] Pathoschild 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 23:00, 11 October 2006 (UTC) Spamsite, Linkfarm e.g. misused in de:Taschentuchbaum --Seewolf 15:42, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. // —[admin] Pathoschild 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC) 23:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC),,

At least two IP's used to spam for single company websites and]. Two of them are from same server and third from same ISP -- 17:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:06, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

It's concerning only one article, but the link was added on a regular basis for at least a month, so the article had to be semi-protected. --FritzG 10:50, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done If semiprotection has controlled it, then blacklisting isn't necessary. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 02:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Link that has been spammed on Wikipedia [66] (see the "Possible mass spamming by User:" section)-- 01:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the permalink to the ANI discussion is here. There doesn't seem to be a large problem, and because it's a legitimate, notable publisher, I'm hesitant to blacklist the site. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:38, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Typo from apparently well-known porn site IP user has been repeatedly[67] trying to change the link on the english wikipage so that he will get cash for diverting traffic to the main site. There is of course no widespread spamming since this link would only be relevant in one article but it's, in my mind, such a blatant abuse of Wikipedia that it should be blacklisted nevertheless. Pascal.Tesson 15:20, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the problem on that page has seemed to stopped, and if the problem's only on one page, other means, such as (semi)protection would be more effective. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:41, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

See the article - self explanatory. Would be good to make an example out of them. -- Chuq 06:05, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, while certainly not a practice that should be done, but the site itself doesn't have seemed to be spammed anymore, as the blog post itself states. Thus, I don't see a need to blacklist this site at the moment. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 15:45, 21 October 2006 (UTC),

Both these websites belong to Réseau Voltaire, from Thierry Meyssan, well known for his controversial book L'Effroyable Imposture (english articles : Voltaire Network, Thierry Meyssan , 9/11: The Big Lie), and cannot be seen as a reliable source, since its content is hardly verifiable, mostly wrong, plus the fact it has a really bad reputation.

The fact is was massively linked inside 208 articles of the french wikipedia, and this does not include links.

Most of the links were cleaned up from the articles this night, which take us a lot of time, but the same users that already added them to the articles ar adding them again, and since we cannot semi-protect or protect such an amount of articles, I don't see other way than blacklisting these websites.

Regards, Manchot 16:30, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I don't think there is any evidence of a genuine spam (i.e. someone using wikipdeia to promote a website) but only a widespread disagreement between several well-respected, long-time Wikipedia contributors regarding the relevance of these links. Manchot is certainly right that many of these links were not appropriate but I feel this is something that should be resolved on a case by case basis on the respective discussion pages. GL 10:03, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Oppose, not a spamming problem. Some propanda maybe, but not spamming. Marc Mongenet 11:49, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
Strongly oppose too. Articles on are always very well documented and sources are of the affirmations are given. Moez 14:31, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done because of the arguments above. guillom 14:55, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
First of all i'm being falsely accused by Manchot of putting the links at first. Furthermore, i did not put all links back. The analysis provided by the site are clearly pov and then well i don't see any reason to put them back, nevertheless the site provides raw material like UN reports, or interviews and sometimes links are used for reference of some paragraph in wp: articles so i felt it was inappropriate to remove them. (:Julien:) 17:09, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

This website is being added to en:Myofascial Release almost as soon as it's removed by a couple of IP addresses. [68], [69], [70]. I wouldn't normally think this sufficient to ask for black listing, but the content of the site (it's an attack on a particular therapist) seems like something we shouldn't have linked even for a few minutes. --SiobhanHansa 18:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

What about semi-protecting the only article where IPs try to add this link? guillom 14:58, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:17, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Linkfarm additions

I got a whole mess of additions which I would like to add - over 280 links. I've been tracking an anonymous user who keeps adding links to Wikipedia that link to a set of pornstar photo sites that are presumably under his control. Given the length of the list I think it might be impratical to list then here, but the full list of items can be seen here on a sublink of my user page: en:User:Tabercil\Porn Linkspam. Can I get the links he's been adding put on the blacklist? 01:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the subpage you linked to provides a list of IP addresses and a list of affected articles, but no list of spam URLs. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:44, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Added monthly to fr:Violon, every time reverted, and it's quite boring (this website keeps beeing a ridiculous advertisement of an unknown violin method, and there is absolutely no interesting content). 14:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC) aka Pierre Vigué

sorry, I've forgotten the comparisons to show the spamming [71], [72], [73], [74]. 14:50, 24 October 2006 (UTC) aka Pierre Vigué

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Recent Commons linkspammer (see commons:Special:Contributions/ Bastique 21:44, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Recurrent spam of all snow-related articles on Wikipedia with apparence of sockpuppetry after blocks [75] [76]. All in all pretty harmless but a clear nuisance nonetheless. Pascal.Tesson 02:53, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:36, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

A user first spammed his site to over 20 articles using his IP [77]. Another user gave this person a spam1 warning. I gave him a spam2, spam3, and spam4 warning. He created an account under the name Goodman441 - [78]. He continued his spam. Another user gave him a spam1 again. I gave him a spam4, mentioning that I have followed him to his named account and felt other warnings where unneccesary. I consider this a sockpuppet to avoid notice and feel his site should be blacklisted. I've gone to it and it's just a placemarker with ads. I'm also asking for a block on this user and IP

X mark.svg Not done; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools. Please resubmit your request if reversion, protection, and blocking are insufficient. —[admin] Pathoschild 18:37, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Proposed removals


Per various requests on in this section and troubleshooting, I would like to request the unblocking of the entire host ''. Just today it prevented me from adding the generalogy tree ( to a related article. Thank you, --Piotrus 22:58, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, is in the external links section of Digital Signal Processor. I believe at it was not listed when it was added, but now, it is impossible to add other links. I visited and cannot see any raison why it is blacklisted. It have tutor and links to free ebooks. I really want to be able to keep this link and add other relevant links.-- 11:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I modified the link to be able to edit the page in the maintime, but it will be great if I can put it back someday.-- 15:12, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
(www.) is not a spam link, but is! --Glenn 16:39, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
I am talking about not So, please remove and add 00:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Can you fix those links please ! -- 21:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree that is not a spam page, it has links to free books, good tutorials and projects to learn from! I reviewed the site, it has basic tutorials to Fourier series which are elementary for Digital Signal Processing. Thank you, I hope you will remove it from the spam list and I even don't know why it was blacklisted!
Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Tarzan link

The following link comes up as blocked

As far as I know the above is an innocuous and useful link about Tarzan.

The blacklist has listed, but in looking through the archives I could not find out why. —MJBurrageTALK • 21:44, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Another site:
also came up as blocked, though it is a useful site for List of television programs by episode count. I'd like to request that "" be removed, or narrowed down to the specific user in the "trek" neighborhood who was causing problems. --Psiphiorg 21:36, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done, apparently; that neighbourhood isn't blacklisted. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Wroclaw article links

The en:Wroclaw article is ineditable due to the spam filter now forbidding these links, which have been on there for a long time and are very helpful information:

  • 1997 - THISISAURL,,,,44548,1501462.html 1997 great flood of Oder River - photo galler

Please put all these links on a safe list, so the site can be edited once again. The spam filter is annoying in this case! 09:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, apparently; there's no matching regex in the blacklist and I have no problem editing the article with the link therein. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:24, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Requesting to remove. A good website with lot of photos and tech data of sunken ships. I happened to need that for it:Andrea Doria (nave) and it:Achille Lauro (nave). Useful as reference or external link on pages specific about sea transport. Don't know why it was blocked, maybe there is a good reason, but it seems to me an honest information site. --Jollyroger 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done; the site was blacklisted in 2004 with no reason specified. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


This was probably added during a spat regarding external links that took place at Tacrolimus among other places. I believe that has been resolved see my talk page. There is still no reason for it to appear in most links, but there's no longer a reason to block it, either. If nothing else, it should be possible to add it to [[79]]. -- 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Done Naconkantari 15:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

hi, the link is being blocked. The message is that triggered the spam filter. any explanation why a polish institute of zoology is in the spam blacklist? --en:User:Sarefo 05:46, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, apparently. I have no trouble saving that link. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:43, 3 October 2006 (UTC) is the website for the company Logos Bible Software, a well-known and widely-respected Bible study software for Windows. I see no reason why it should be blacklisted in the first place. Would someone mind filling me in? -- Canar 23:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC) (Resigning after anonymous vandalism.

Yes check.svg Done; no reason was specified for the addition, there is no archived discussion, and the administrator who added it is unknown. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a blog about town of Ogulin, Croatia. It provide useful information and also some comments about economical and political situation in Ogulin and Croatia. It is not a self-promoting or SPAM site.

I've tried to put it as a external link to

Yes check.svg Done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC), *,,

These sites are no longe redirecting, and keeping them on the spam blacklist only serves to frustrate any editors trying to improve the pages that link to these sites:,,,,, 05:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, please remove them. - 04:04, 4 August 2006 (UTC) (
Yes check.svg Done, with no opposition in #wikimedia and #wikipedia. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC) is listed as spam, it is in fact a Polish scholary organisation, of catholic intelectuals. Molobo

Correction-all sites with this extension w a w. pl are blocked. This will mean blocking many sites of organisations and historic sites. W a w. pl is the internet domain of Poland's capitol Warsaw (Warszawa-in short waw). Please correct this mistake(already three Polish related articles are being blocked due to this as seen above)

Yes check.svg Done, apparently. There is no matching regex in the blacklist, and I have no trouble saving that link. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:25, 3 October 2006 (UTC)



Thanks to public pressure, the cybersquatter Wayne Smith (aka Universe Daily) has had to hand back the above three domains to the Irwin family and Australia Zoo. WHOIS records have confirmed it so these domains no longer need to be blacklisted. Cheers --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  13:42, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done. MaxSem 14:17, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Not done

This is a website containing useful information on the Chinese dialect called Wu dialect. Its website name is "Jiangnan Yayin Hua Wuyu" (江南雅音话吴语) (translated as "The Speech of South of Yangtze River called Wu Dialect"). Please remove the link under the name home4u\.china\.com in the spam blacklist so I can modify the information on "Wu dialect" on Wikipedia. Thank You.

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the site. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per google search returning multiple spam results. Please use whitelisting instead. Naconkantari 14:52, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is IBM's website for under development stuff. Currently referenced, for example, by the Cell microprocessor entry. How did this website end up on the blacklist?

Please see section below requesting the same information. 03:05, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per previous discussions: May 2006, June 2006 (1), June 2006 (2), and July 2006. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is a very good site containing information about Google AdSense. I really don't know why this site was added to the spam blacklist. It is for free an really helpful for all thoose, who need information about the topic. I found it to be the best website on this topic.

It was added because it was being used to replace valid links [80], [81]. Naconkantari 16:14, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no followup comment from the requesting user. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Would you please remove Fish Eaters from the blacklist? It's an extremely informative website on traditional Catholicism, and it has a lot of credibility, considering it's advertised on New Advent, for example. Thank you.

Already reviewed and declined multiple times. See en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. Just zis Guy, you know? 22:38, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
It's never been "reviewed" once. What happens is someone requests de-listing and you repeat your same fallacious arguments which get soundly defeated by me. The defeats are ignored because you are an Admin and I am not. Even though you pretty much admitted to being someone who has a s*** list and rarely changes his mind about it [82], even though you actually call Catholics "papists" [83], your word is gold and my arguments are ignored because Admins don't usually have the time to investigate every little argument at Wiki, esp. ones that run on as ours do.
Naconkantari asked us to "Please continue discussions elsewhere and return with a final resolution." [84] I attempted to do this on your Talk Page and we failed, once again going through the same old litany of arguments (which I won in the objective order). I said to you:
"I think it would be a good thing if an objective, fresh-to-this-issue third party were to look at the site and consider whether a few links ("Further Reading," not "Resources" -- labeled "traditional" or "traditionalist" or whatever) on relevant pages would be a helpful thing or not. Maybe Naconkantari herself could look into it if she has the time. But as it is, you repeat your same old arguments, and I rebut with my same old arguments, and on we go for endless paragraphs that only the intrepid and exceedingly patient would want to wade through. You're an Admin; I am not. She will naturally and understandably listen to you over me, not having the time, I'm sure, to investigate every quibble that comes her way, esp. when such a row involves the pages of arguments that we produce and comes down to such things as debating what "traditional" vs. "traditionalist" mean and how Ecclesia Dei (What??) plays into it all. A simple, "This woman and I have bad blood between us and want an objective third party to investigate and decide what, if anything, should be done with regard to removing the site from the blacklist" -- all without year-old stuff about "spamming" and "edit wars" and what rules were in place at the time links were added, and with no talk of ex post facto judgments and Dominick and blah blah blah, etc., ad nauseum. This would be an easy thing to ask for, and fair all around. At least it could be if it were handled in a "This is Day One. Here's a site. Is it an OK site to link as "further reading" on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?" way -- and with no behind-the-scenes monkey-business. I don't see why this is too much to ask."
Your response was to call me a "spamming troll" or "trolling spammer" or what not and remove the exchange from your Talk Page. [85]. I repeat the quoted request here and ask that a person who doesn't call Catholics "papists," who doesn't have personal issues with me, who doesn't have ego invested in a s*** list, etc., forget almost year-old charges and counter-charges, look at the website objectively, and decide: "Is it an OK site to link as 'further reading' on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?"
(BTW, the person who made the initial request above erred; the site isn't "advertised" at the Catholic Encyclopedia; it is simply linked to from it, as it is from Latin Mass Magazine, NYU's The Revealer,, parishes, chapels, etc.). -- A Stranger, 11 Sep 2006 by my computer's clock
Per multiple previous discussions, it is abundantly clear that your principal aim is to add links to your site, not information. Since the last conversation on my Talk ended up with blatant trolling from you, and several previous discussions have gone the same way, I do not propose to discuss this any further. Just zis Guy, you know? 10:37, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
Here [86] is the exchange you are referring to as "blatant trolling," even after Naconkantari requested that we resolve the matter elsewhere and come back with a resolution [87]-- an impossibility, as it turns out, since you are clearly not open to discussion or reason.
I am tired of discussing my "principal aims" with you, as they are totally irrelevant to the questions: "Is it an OK site to link as 'further reading' on relevant pages? If so, in what manner should any links be added, how should any links be labeled so they are not misleading, and how many links are 'too many'?" Those questions are the issue, JzG, but you can't leave personalities, ego, and suspicions of hidden "principal aims" out of it. I repeat the request that an objective third party look at the site and answer the above questions without our continual sniping getting in the way. -- A Stranger
Note to Meta sysops: MacGyverMagic appears to concur with this blacklisting. No other third-party responses yet. Just zis Guy, you know? 13:43, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Please answer the following questions. I apologize if these have been discussed before; there is simply too much previous discussion in this case to read over, considering the large number of other requests to consider.

  1. Does the link provide useful information, either complementing a Wikipedia article or for another wiki using this blacklist?
  2. Has it been demonstrably spammed, except in a possible good-faith attempt to add a useful website to many relevant articles?
  3. If it has been spammed, was it in a widespread manner by a large number of users? Can you provide any examples of this?

Thank you. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 03:44, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Answers in order:
  1. Some of the links provide useful information, but others provide a minority point of view - it's not always easy to tell. There is subtle (and sometimes not so subtle) bias throughout the site, and the site has been used to encourage the insertion of minority POV into articles, e.g. Some of the useful information is also available at other, more authoritative sites. Unlike, for example,, we have no idea what the purported authority of this site is, and it does appear to be essentially a monograph. Ican't recall a case where similar information could not be sourced from groups with a provable authority, or from sites which do not display the underlying bias (e.g. a document was linked which was also available from the Vatican website, which is not only more authoritative and neutral, in terms of global Catholicism, but is also the original source of the document).
  2. Yes. The edit war last December (documented at en:User:JzG/Fisheaters) showed a fierce determination on the part of the site owner to add links to her site, which is one of the no-nos in en:WP:EL. Since that time the site owner has returned many times to argue for links to her site to be allowed, but has not produced any evidence of intent to add content, only links. Which for my money is covered by en:WP:SPAM. For example, a link was added to en:bell "by mistake" ([88]). If you are selectively adding links to articles where you wish to support the article content, you don't accidentally add them to disambiguation pages. If you look at the linksearch [89] you'll see, for example, [90] where U2BA, the site owner, is arguing over lniks to her site.
  3. Yes. Over a hundred articles on en: on subjects which vary from the site's own subject matter (en:Traditionalist Catholicism) to the bell disambiguation page, and a fair number of links on other language versions as well (I removed I think about 40 outside of en:). There is a list at en:User:JzG/Fisheaters. Addition of these links will split into a number of categories: (a) good-faith additions by editors who like the site, there are several Traditionalist Catholic editors of whom some are I believe members of the site's forums; (b) additions by the site owner under her username en:User:Used2BAnonymous; (c) during the December 2005 edit war the site's forums contained discussions which encouraged users to revert the removal of links ands provided instructions on how to quickly become a "historied" user to make these harder to spot; (d) additions by the site owner using dynamic IP addresses. It is this last which makes it difficult to use tools other than the blacklist to regulate the issue. The major source of agitation to add the site is the site owner herself, and a page is maintained at attacking me and others for requesting blacklisting in the first place (per recent ArbCom thinking this alone would be sufficient to have all links to the site banned from en:), and asserting that this is on the basis of religious bias rather than spamming.
en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Dominick and en:Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Used2BAnonymous are also relevant, as are some discussions on the FE forums, e.g. [91], [92] and (which, it suddenly strikes me, is remarkably similar in tone and content to one of the pages set up by banned en:User:Jason Gastrich in pursuing his POV war). Note the instructions to set up a user page so your account name is not redlinked, thus reducing your chances of being spotted by RC patrollers, and how to rack up an edit history so you can participate in discussions.
In short, then, this is a website which has some good content and some biased content, and tends to editorialise around issues (although not as badly as, for example), but this content, and any involvement with Wikipedia, is fundamentally based on the pursuit of an agenda. In this regard it is indistinguishable from a million other private websites. It is nicelyt laid out and decently written, not openmly polemical for the most part, but in some cases that simply serves to conceal the underlying bias. Above all, this is not a website about Catholicism, it's a website promoting and supporting a dissenting subset of Catholicism. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:06, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
Re: "per recent ArbCom thinking this alone would be sufficient to have all links to the site banned": that explanation of why Wikipedia bans this site wasn't there until you banned it, JzG, and it was added because a) I get asked about it and am sick of explaining it, and b) the ban and the accompanying accusations affect how people view my site. One example of how your calling me a "spammer" and such negatively affects my site -- That is a comment box at one of the most popular Catholic blogs out there. I have asked you to stop slandering me and my site, but you won't. I have said to you, in effect, "Ban all you want, but stop slandering me in the Talk Pages" -- but you wouldn't. I would hate to think that Wiki expects me to do nothing while you call me a "spammer" and such for adding "too many" (perfectly relevant) links to my site when there were no rules against such when I did so.
And, once again: 1) I did not use my forum to get people to revert links, and 2) the wikipedia2.html page is an adjunct to and is only linked to from the page evangelize.html. Unless you think Catholics should be forbidden from using the Net or editing Wiki, perhaps you'd like to explain what is wrong with those two pages. -- A Stranger 13:03, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
God help me, I was goign to avoid getting drawn into yet another battle here, but since you have made this comment I would point out that when new policies are introduced to control abuses of the project, it is pointless to pretend that because your particular abuses predate the formal policy they are somehow alright. Wikipedia is not and never has been a link farm. Guideliens on precisely how we interpret that long-standing policy are just that: guidelines on interpretation.
I offer the following simple solution to your problems:
1. Register an account
2. Make verifiably neutral main-space edits using that account without adding links to your site
3. Repeat. Many times.
Until then, I and several others will continue to view you as being here to promote your site and your beliefs rather than build an encyclopaedia. What is more than obvious is that you have total commitment to your site and your beliefs, and that commitment is far greater than any evident commitment you have to Wikipedia, which you seem to think has only two uses for you: to present your particular minority perspective on Catholicism (as evidence your instructions on how to avoid edits being spotted on recent changes - something which no good-faith contributor of verifiably neutral content would need to know), and to provide links to your site.
I have said this before and I will say it again: linking to your site is no substitute for adding verifiable and neutral content to Wikipedia articles and in the end you appear to be arguing primarily from the basis that it is up to those who want the link excluded to justify its exclusion, whereas in fact it is the other way round, and it is your job to justify inclusion. The reasons for including links are:
  • If they are a reliable authority used as a source in the article. I'm sorry but your site does not represent an organisation of any known authority, so can't be represented as the view of x named authority on a subject. I appreciate that you have put a lot of work into it, but people put a lot of work into blogs and other monographs. Sure, your opinion may well be well-informewd, but we don't know that because we don't know who you are and we don't know your credentials, nor do you have an identified editorial board or stated connection to any known body of verifiable authority. Why should we take your word for anything? And if you are mirroring content from a provable authority then the authority, not your site, should be referenced; this was the problem with the encyclical linked from your site instead of the Vatican.
  • If they contain content which would, in an ideal world, be contained in a Great Article, but the article has not got there yet. These are almost all mature articles of at least good quality and often featured quality, little is missing apart from (in some cases and according to the arguments on your site) a certain minority point of view. Undue weight applies - and I don't mean correcting the pressing problem of giving "undue weight" to the majority or establishment perspective. If what is on your site can't go in the article because it is not verifiable and verifiably neutral, then adding a link simply moves the POV fork offsite, which is unacceptable.
  • Links which go into a level of detail which is inappropriate for an article in a general encyclopaedia. Most of these are large and detailed articles, with historical context and an active WikiProject striving to give the most comprenhensive and authoritative coverage to the subject. Detail is there in abundance. We have an article on the purported Papal oath, for example, which goes into vastly more detail than is really justified by its global significance. And a lot of the links that get added there seem to be to trad sites explaining in essence how, yes, we know there's no credible evidence that any Pope ever swore not to make any changes to the liturgy, but really, honestly, it is true, honest.
Nowhere on the list do we find "links which should be included because someone else has a link", which is a common justification offered where articles are passing the Spam Event Horizon, and one you yourself have used. Nor is correcting a bias towards the mainstream an acceptable reason. And there is absolutely no kind of "right" to include a link. Above all to my mind it is your fierce and single-minded determination to have links which has let you down every time so far. Just zis Guy, you know? 11:14, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

God help you, you were going to avoid getting drawn into yet another battle? Then why did you start in again at 09:35 and 09:42 on 20 September? Is the game that you get to say anything about my site and any setting of the record straight on my part is against some WP:SOMETHING-OR-OTHER?
I'd already registered an account, made verifiably neutral main-space edits using that account without linking to my site, and repeated many times. I didn't like it, thanks. Dealing with the Dominicks of the world makes me mean and sarcastic, as does dealing with you. It is bad for my soul and, so, I prefer to stay away as much as possible. (Does the official, authoritative, verifiable head of the official Chabad organization -- an "official organization" being recognizable by its paperwork -- whose authority and verifiability derives from Schneerson himself who gets his authority straight from God, have an account and make edits? Just curious.)
My commitment to my site and my beliefs is far greater" than any evident commitment you have to Wikipedia? Chyeah, damn straight! Is Wikipedia a new religion or something? What kind of odd-ball statement is that for you to make? Do you think the average Lubavitcher's interests in Wiki are "far greater" than his interests in Chabad? That is utter silliness, JzG, and if your interests in Wiki are "far greater" than your religious beliefs and your real life -- well, I just don't know what to say about that other than I feel sorry for you. As to Wiki's uses in my mind, it seems to be good for finding pop culture references and possible associations between things (it is indispensible for this, though anything found needs to be verified elsewhere, as Jim Wales himself would tell you), to use as a starting point for further information, for overtaking Google, for slamming my site and slandering me, and for insulting traditional/ist Catholics.
I have no idea what you are talking about when you refer to avoiding "edits being spotted on recent changes," sorry (though you might ask Dominick about his techniques). I think you are muddying waters again, throwing stuff about and hoping something sticks. My page on the matter, once again, is here: evangelize.html.
The information at my site is verifiable. Go look it up. And if it is up to those who want to add links to justify each and every addition, then why not blacklist all sites (calling them all "spam" in the process -- always a nice thing for good will and Wikipedia PR) and have any link discussed on this page? How come Chabad doesn't have to go through this nonsense? (I just checked; they still have their Waldorf Salad page link [93]).
I have no problems with encyclicals being linked to at the Vatican instead of my site and have said so repeatedly (I think you only bring this up to lead others to think I think otherwise, as in you are muddying the waters yet again; it's the only logical explanation since I have said it repeatedly). The Vatican's archives, however, only go back to Leo XIII and aren't complete even for those Popes. Go look it up. [94] Try to find Pius XII's "Address to Midwives," for ex.
I don't know what your trip is about some trads and the alleged papal oath, but you can read what my site says about it at papaloath.html.
You say links can be added
"If they contain content which would, in an ideal world, be contained in a Great Article, but the article has not got there yet. These are almost all mature articles of at least good quality and often featured quality, little is missing apart from (in some cases and according to the arguments on your site) a certain minority point of view."
Well, your use of the word "minority" is telling. "Minority" how? Numerically? Then eliminate links to any website about religious practices because all religious are "minorities" relative to the number of human beings on the earth. Or do you mean "minority" as in "not mainstream" relative to the Holy See? Then tell that to the FSSP and Benedict XVI. [95] You keep going on about "POV forks" and such, but the deal is this: there are TWO Missae and TWO liturgical calendars in use in the Latin Church. That's a fact, that's mainstream, that's not a secret. You are the one with the POV who sees Vatican-condoned trad practices as some "not mainstream" weirdness that doesn't deserve mention lest it constitute a "POV fork." And as to the "little is missing" part, how funny that Father Jim Tucker JUST wrote in his blog a few days ago [96] "See Fish Eaters for the history of the Feast and all the interesting tidbits you wouldn't come across elsewhere."
I never said there was a "right" to include a link (though Chabad gets the mighty privilege -- 437 times, last I looked). I do have a moral right not to be slandered by you on Talk Pages -- or, at least, you have a moral duty to cut it out. -- A Stranger 14:13, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Pathoschild, hi. My responses to those questions: I believe the links definitely provided not only useful, but one-of-a-kind information. A sampling of the sorts of links added:
  • Link to a page on Twelfthnight [] from the entry "Twelfth Night".
  • Link to Epiphany customs [] from the entry "Epiphany."
  • Link to site's index page [] from the entry "Traditionalist Catholics"
  • Link to page on Candlemas [] from the entry "Candlemas."
  • Link to page on the Feast of St. Martha on the entry Martha []
  • Link to page on the Feast of St. Brigid [] from the entry "Saint Brigid". Two links were used to replace [97] mine -- this site and this one Dig the embedded midi file!
  • Link to a page on the Rosary [] from the entry "Rosary" -- a link which was replaced by Dominick with this page [98] because my link was "linkspam." He later added [99] a link to this page. Makes no sense to me, either.
  • Link to page called "Votive Offerings" [] from the entry "Ex-voto."
  • Links to the page "Seasonal Customs" [] on the entries for Advent, Lent, Christmas, Easter
  • Link to page on the Day of the Dead [] from the entry "Day of the Dead."
  • Link to a page on traditional Catholic funerals [] from an entry called "Requiem."
  • Link to a page on Holy Water from the entry "Holy Water" []
  • Link to the page "Religious Life" [] from the entry "Nuns."
There were many such links as Catholicism is a HUGE topic and the site is quite large; it's been my life's work for a number of years now, which is part of why seeing it called "spam" and a "blog" and such is so maddening to me. See the pages "Being Catholic" [] and "Seasonal Customs" [] for the sources of most of the links. I, myself -- the site owner -- added probably 100 or so links (almost all were links to specific pages, as in the above examples, and not to the index page). But this is key: When I added the links, there were no rules in place at the time (the year 2005) against adding links to one's own site (other than those added "to promote a site"), and there was no rule against having "too many links" (I don't think there is a rule now against the latter, at least not for some people). Further, I did not add links to "spam," or to "increase traffic" to my non-commercial, ad-free site (most of my traffic isn't recorded as belonging to Fish Eaters anyway since the majority of the traffic goes to the site's discussion forum, which sits on a different server). I added the links because I believed them (and do believe them) to be relevant with regard to the entries to which they were added, and to be of interest to those looking up the mentioned entries -- not only for the traditional/ist Catholics, but for non-trad Catholics (who share in many of the customs), the merely curious, and those who need to know about historical Catholic practices -- such practices constituting what Western Christendom did for 2,000 years and being of interest to historians, writers, and artists also.
I have no idea how many links were added by other people, but others who added links did so of their own volition and not at my request. That others still want to add links is evident by the periodic requests here at this Spam Talk page (and, to me, from people who ask me about it).
The site is a traditional Catholic site -- or "traditionalist," if JzG prefers, though the former term is most commonly used by such Catholics (see [ this page] for the site's stance, and [ this page] for what is meant by "traditional Catholicism" and to get a sense of the objectivity of the site with regard to SSPX vs. FSSP vs. sedevacantist type issues). The links were almost always labeled "traditional," at least when such a label was necessary, because of calendar dates, Missal references, etc., in order to differentiate between traditional and majority styles of Catholicism. (I've told JzG numerous times that I personally wouldn't care whether any links were labelled "traditional" or "traditionalist," though I have no control over how people label links they add. He seems to think that their being labeled "traditional" is "misleading." He could add an "ist" rather than stripping away the link and blaming me, however). The links were added by hand and were fewer in number than links to other websites (, a numerically very small Jewish religion -- their number is much smaller than the number of traditional/ist Catholics -- now has 432 search returns from Wiki [100], with many of those links not labeled "Lubavitcher" -- and appearing on entries as disparate as "Waldorf Salad" and "Witchcraft." On 8 August when this matter was brought up here on this Spam page, they had 254 links.). IMO, Judaism is a huge subject, too, so why not "a lot" of links if they're helpful, on relevant entries, clearly labeled, the best of their kind, etc.? What's the big problem? If you ask me, each link should be looked at on its own in the context of the entry at which it's found, without obssessing that somehow, somewhere, some webmaster might be "benefiting" by having to pay for more bandwidth to his non-commercial site. "Too many links" is like the "too many notes" line in Amadeus. Makes no sense. Links are either helpful and relevant on a given entry, or they're not. And the double standard with regard to the FEW/chabad issue is killing me, esp. when coupled with talk of "papists" and such and when the offered excuses for the disparate treatment don't hold water at all.
The links to the F.E.W. were added as "External Links" or "Further Reading," not "Sources" or "References," except for links to papal encyclicals such as were linked to in the body of the entry "Traditionalist Catholics" (and I, of course, agree with JzG that when those encyclicals are available at, for ex., the Vatican's website, they should be linked to there).
Finally, I thank you for asking the right questions. Whew! -- A Stranger
To respond to JzG:
* He says that the site provides a "minority point of view": yes, traditional Catholics are a minority, as are Hindus, Jews, Anglicans, and atheists. I'm not sure what your point is about that.
* The Vatican Archive goes back to Leo XIII. Doesn't do much for us in the way of linking to, for ex., Pope Paul III's Sublimus Dei. But I agree with you that when an encyclical is available at the Vatican, it should be linked there.
* The "edit war" showed a "fierce determination" on my part to stop being punked on by Dominick and to get fair treatment, at a time when there was no rule against adding links to one's own site. Pathoschild was there monitoring the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry and knows some of what went on there and what things were like.
* The disambig link was added by mistake. Sorry. Kill me now.
* The page which you mention and decry but don't link to is here: and is an adjunct of this page: I can't see a thing wrong with either.
* I can't see a thing wrong with my telling my friends at my forum what was being done to the FE site by Dominick and you. I didn't encourage anyone to revert, though some took it upon themselves to do so. (Note, though, that Dominick and you -- who weren't an admin at the time -- could revert all you wanted)
* You are not "attacked" at . The situation is simply described as it happened and is happening. Your calling Catholics "papist" is proof enough of your religious bias, and your insistence that "traditional" rather than "traditionalist" is "misleading" is the same.
* I don't know anything about "Jason Gastrich," but whoever he is, I hope you're not going to start accusing me of being him, too. The advice given at the two links in the above item make sense to me.
* My "underlying" bias is clear from the site's title: "Fish Eaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism." I am not sure what you are intimating with this "hidden bias" talk, but what I and other trads believe is all over the site, clearly labeled, for all to see. Perhaps you can read the [ All About this Site] page and find the "dissent" from the "majority opinion" with regard to Vatican II, Benedict XVI, etc. On your Talk Page, you wrote, [101] "A Traditionalist Catholic follows a partticular version of the Catholic tradition, with an arbitrarily declared break which is not recognised as such by the mainstream Catholic church." This is just proof of your lack of information as to what "traditionalist Catholicism" necessarily entails, what my site is about, and what I believe. I attend a regular old parish with a regular old Bishop appointed by John Paul II, with a regular old FSSP priest who was likely ordained at the Vatican itself. You either just don't know what you are talking about, JzG, or you have a serious problem with Catholicism or with me and won't let it go. -- A Stranger

X mark.svg Not done. Given the unusual complexity of this particular case, I reviewed all archived discussions and most of the external links. In addition to this discussion, the site was discussed here in May 2006, June 2006, and August 2006. It was proposed for addition in May 2006, but was already blacklist; the other discussions concerned removal. In both removal discussions, Naconkantari denied the requests based on JzG's arguments and evidence.

The Spam blacklist is used by a large number of websites, not the least of which are every Wikimedia project. Small-scale spam or minor violations of one project's rules are insufficient cause for blacklisting, even if the violation occurs on the largest site using the blacklist. Specific violations of Wikipedia's external links guidelines are thus largely irrelevant here. However, links were added to a very large number of Wikipedia articles, and several editors overrode consensus and dispute resolution processes to keep them there.

Many arguments for blacklisting refer to,, and I can understand the frustration which often leads to pages such as the last, and I do not consider it to be evidence of any bad faith or ill intent on the webmistress' part. The Wikipedia how-to page is more ambivalent: on the one hand, it preaches civility, understanding, and honesty, and discourages sockpuppetry and revert warring. However, it also explains how to circumvent editcount limits, fool other editors into thinking that the user is established, encourages the placement of links for the sake of placing links (rather than to improve the content), and incites the circumvention of consensus through astroturfing techniques. The goal in this case seems to be to spread a message, rather than attract visitors to any one site; however, these techniques are nonetheless harmful to the sites affected.

The site seems to be of an overall high quality and contain useful information, and the information therein does complement encyclopedic articles. Unfortunately, the priority placed on placement, rather than improvement of the affected pages, seems to be similar in spirit to spamdexing, defined as "deliberately creating web pages which will be indexed by search engines in order to increase the chance of a website or page being placed close to the beginning of search engine results". This is notably shown through the placements of links on largely irrelevant articles, which increases exposure to the link while providing no useful complementary benefit to the article.

For these reasons I'm closing this discussion and leaving the site on the blacklist. Should editors wish to remove it in the future, they should consider improving on the concerns I've explained here. They should remember that although they may not place high priority on the affected project, administrators must do so in the course of administration. Although this decision is not final, it is authoritative; future requests may be refused out of hand if there is no reason to reconsider. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 00:58, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

The suggestion on evangelize.html/wikipedia.html to get a history of editing came directly from Wiki help pages as I found them when I first got to Wiki. I don't know the exact URL and don't know if that page is the same at this point in time, but it said that the best way to get an edit history is to use the random page feature. The suggestion is also born out of experience: to vote for consensus, you can't have edited just 20 times. I am not sure why telling people that is wrong, and am not sure where you are seeing on either of those pages any advice to place links for the sake of links (in fact, as you say, I don't tell people to add links to my site at all). As to astroturfing, I am unclear as to why, for ex., Dominick's involvement with "WikiProject Catholicism/Collaboration" is any different from the single, small thread (old and now dead) at my forum in which I talked to my friends about what was going on here (and in any case, my attempts to get Catholics involved with Wiki failed anyway). But if it's against the rules, I would have no problem adding that rule to that page and warning people about discussing such matters in the forum. The goal of evangelize.html/wikipedia.html is to ensure that Catholics let their voices be heard like others do, plain and simple, and I tell Catholics to be balanced and fair and all that good stuff, as you admit.
I have never created a page simply for search engine rank and there is nothing on my site that resembles I am extremely curious as to what you mean by this and if you could point out an example. Since you follow that statement with "the placements of links on largely irrelevant articles," I can only guess that you are not talking about my site itself, but about the bell disambiguation page incident, which was a mistake that happened when I moved to the new domain and admittedly added a couple of links far too carelessly when updating old ones; I was in "rote mode" doing all those updates). Other than that, I don't think there were any links added to "irrelevant articles." The only article that could possibly come close is when I added a link to the page on Mel Gibson, who is a trad Catholic, at the height of the "Mel Gibson/The Passion of the Christ vs. The World" debacle, when traditional Catholicism was a "hot topic" with regard to Gibson, and the media were full of articles full of misconceptions about what trad. Catholicism is.
As you know, and as can be seen in my edit history, I did work on lots of articles -- esp. the "Traditionalist Catholic" entry (I spent months working on that, all for mostly nothing) -- and I also worked on articles before I even registered an account.
While I obviously disagree with your decision and question your reasoning on the above issues (well, not the reasoning, but the premises), I thank you for at least trying to LOOK and LISTEN, Pathos (and also for having a clue as to the reasons for wikipedia2.html and not jumping on what I see as self-defense as a sign of malice -- that page being one that would be unecessary and gone anyway if the site were de-listed). Because you say, and I and many agree, that "the site seems to be of an overall high quality and contain useful information, and the information therein does complement encyclopedic articles," and because of the above, I hope you reconsider, but until and unless, I wish you peace and thank you for your attitude of fairness. --- A Stranger 16:07, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

P.S. I am amending the wikipedia.html page now. --- A Stranger 16:09, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleted and blacklisted for being a dead url on entry for Alexa Chung, but now back up and the most comprehensive site of its kind so deserves unblacklisting and reinclusion.

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the site. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, A google search returns multiple spam results. Use whitelisting instead. Naconkantari 14:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Not a spam website and was possibly added by the webmasters from (Which should be added!), an imitator site. is known for stealing and redistributing the web templates from ClanTemplates(.com), despite the fact it is against ToS/U.

-- 05:57, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

ADDITION: is not a spam website and the article for the website has been edited by has stolen the works of the designers at and refuses to remove them. This additional action on WiKi, of removing the links and editing the article, and reporting as spam is extremely disturbing and proposterous. If you have any questions regarding the validity of these claims, please feel free to ask the 100,000 members at on where the templates come from. In addition, please see the following page on where every single template is released one by one by the original author.
The article has also always stated that the website is owned by Zesix Interactive. specifically states that the real website is and not
Please remove from the spam block. We are also requesting the banning of from WiKi due to the reasons stated above.
Thank you, Vineet C. Founder / General Manager Zesix Interactive
I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the site. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:04, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend not removing per this Naconkantari 14:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per Naconkantari. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is a portal to many very useful free downloads. --Gerry Ashton 19:29, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't get this block. IBM is a legitimate site with legitimate articles on it. I'm trying to fix the links at the bottom of the Cell_microprocessor article but I can't because of this. -- 14:24, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Really not understanding this one: elucidation please. —Phil | Talk 22:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I understand that there were some issues with this previously, but I would echo the above; this is a portal to IBM's emerging technology offerings. There is a lot in there which is of compelling interest to developers and others. 13:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per previous discussions: May 2006, June 2006 (1), June 2006 (2), and July 2006. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 06:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

While might be a SPAM site, is not. This is the personal website of a young German actress named Kristian Jurcevic which you'll easily find out by visiting the site. So: Please unlock and just lock, or, at least, whitelist! Thanks a lot, -- Nicetry 02:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Which Wikimedia site are you trying to include the link on? Naconkantari 20:21, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Sorry I didn't check back earlier ... I need the link in article Fabrixx on German Wikipedia.
And please don't just put it on a local whitelist. is a free webspace provider which can be abused by anyone, but will also be used by lots of decent users. Wiki shouldn't lock a whole webspace provider just because a single user created a SPAM website there (which was already removed). Thanks! -- Ciao, Nicetry 21:18, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
Why is this site back on the blacklist????
Please: Don't blacklist a whole free website provider for a few abusing users!!!
--Nicetry 21:43, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done; webhosts with weak or no verification are too easily abused for spam purposes, despite any legitimate uses. Please add useful sites to local whitelists. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm one of the administators who creatd the forum "Hermandad del Yaoi" with the link: is a yaoi community forum with reviews of the most popular yaoi series and with image galeries, it's an spanish forum, it's not an spam site, we have really good reviews of the series on their respective sections of the forum, we also have yaoi/slash fanfiction and fanart, and we're not a hosting provider. Not every forum is an spam site, this is not, we have several kinds of topics but the main one is yaoi, I tried to put it on: because its related to the spanish section of yaoi and slash.

Please remove the forum from the blacklist. Thanks a lot for your attention.--gemininosaga 17:54, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 20:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

I beg your pardon, but I really don't understand about "local white list" , Does it mean I can use it in the section it goes? because I'm trying to use the link in the "yaoi" spanish article, or, What else do I need to do the linking? Thanks.

Please ask an administrator from to add the site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 16:15, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Request to remove from blacklist. Person that added the external links was not aware that it was considered "spamming" and has since learned how to "discuss" the addition rather than editing it directly. Please remove. MMoyer 13:06, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Oppose. Discussion ensued only after the site was blacklisted here. Even still, there really hasn't been any discussion other than the above user stating "Hey, I really need to add this link, I think it would be helpful" on one article's talk page. Prior to that, the user had spammed the link 21 times and kept re-adding the link via anonymous IP addresses without discussion after multiple people had been removing it from 7 different articles. The site was blacklisted appropriately and does not add appropriate content to Wikipedia per en:Wikipedia:External links. (And although MMoyer is now claiming it was a different user who originally spammed those links, his original request to be removed from this list had a different spin on it [102]) Neil916 19:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I am really sorry for this. Like I stated before, I had no idea that it was considered spam. I did "talk about" adding it to the article like it is SUPPOSED to be done. I am WikiDumb and still learning... made a mistake and trying to learn. I have no hidden agenda other than awareness of support for people who suffer from this disease. I was not aware that links to forums and such were not allowed since other articles have them. Case in point - en:Wikipedia:Alopecia totalis. When I brought this up in the "talk" page, he suggested "If you think they're inappropriate, then by all means remove them with an edit summary referring to Wikipedia's policy." Okay... so why didn't you Neil? Why do I feel like this editor has a vendetta against My request is for the removal of the site from the blacklist... NOT so that it can be spammed all over wikipedia, but because it is showing up on Google as a spammer, which it is NOT... MMoyer 13:33, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

In a way, I guess you can say that I did have a vendetta against after it was spammed so many times. After we removed it, you kept adding it back in. That's why I took the time to collect the sumbission history, monitor it, and submit it here to be blacklisted. You were using anonymous IP's and weren't responding to any of the messages we were sending you [103] [104] [105] [106]. I'm happy to see the spamming stop and strenuously oppose removing that link from the blacklist. Neil916 07:42, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

Update: September 4, 2006 - this site herhairlosshelp has been caught spamming multiple websites. I found this blacklist ban through google and I am not surprised. MMoyer and her sidekick Dee have spammed our site multiple times. Theyve been removed from multiple websites as well. The comcast IP address is Dee's IP address. They have blatantly violated our posting policies on our community websites countless times and have been banned elsewhere. The decision Wikipedia has made is completely justified in our opinion. These two are masters of manipulation. To claim that they did not know what they were doing when they saw their link removed nearly TWENTY ONE TIMES, is just plain dishonest. Im glad you see it as such. We have a vendetta against them as well for the same reason you stated above: Their conduct created it. Just putting in our request that you not reconsider their ban from this site. It is well deserved.

      • This man is out of control, and preys on womens hair loss as an oppurnity to make money. The real truth is all his users left him and hes upset.

I take great offense to his statements, where I have NOTHING to do with him problem! i posted the link on this site, because i was looking information up and seen others posted. Why is it ok to have one but not the other?

  • X mark.svg Not done, there's strong evidence of spamming, and no legitimate uses for links to this site. MaxSem 06:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • And you know what? That's okay. The links were done not in accordance with wiki and I already apologized for that and all my future edits will be done according to wikipedia standards as I stated before. We were not being dishonest, just "wikidumb"... heck, I didn't even know about talk pages until a few weeks ago!! Neil, be sure to add the other sites that are "spamming" your hair loss articles, otherwise you are just being a poor editor.MMoyer 13:02, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Please go to the talk pages of those articles, propose addition, and when consensus reached, resubmit your request here. According to English Wikipedia's policy, you should not add links to your sites. MaxSem 18:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

You claim you were just being "wikidumb" when you were apparently "wikidumb" nearly 21 times. People would have to be extremely "dumb" to believe that story. Your manipulation is not going to work here MMoyer. has been been banned from multiple websites for spamming. That is a fact. Everything you've done here matches the same pattern you've established elsewhere, perfectly. The only "preying" going on here is from you two and your dishonest methods for trying to steal free advertising and members frm other sites. I am not the least bit surprised you've done the same here *and* got caught. Your true colors shine in your further insults of the Wikipedia editor "Neil" by calling him a "poor editor". You guys are a piece of work.

The spam filter is blocking the link

. The site appears to be legitimate, and is directly related to the article in which it's used ( Somebody with the power: please remove this from the blacklist.

wikipedia en user 'Ultra megatron' posting as 14:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend not removing per multiple spambot attacks such as this Naconkantari 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add my web site to the Jackie Chan page (, but due to the Spam blocking of Netfirms it won't take it.

My web site is legitimate and has been for many years. It has relevant information about Jackie that many fans find informative and fun.

Could you please remove my web site URL from the spam blocker? Thanks.

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Please see above section. Naconkantari 14:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

My link,, has been there for ages but got rejected while I was updating something else. It seems http : // is what it objects to, or rather this text without the spaces, and it will not let me add

-- 15:50, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Why was this URL blacklisted? While it is, it is not possible to edit the Wikipedia Devolution article without removing a link to the site of an English regionalist party. The party is very minor, and pretty silly, but I'll be damned if that's sufficient reason to remove its link. Countersubject 22:37, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per google search returning multiple spam sites. Naconkantari 15:00, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

For some reason, the website of Tuath na Gaoth Aneas (tuathnagaothaneas.awardspace. com) is being blocked from addition to Wikipedia. Can this URL please be removed from the blacklist as it is a religious site, not spam?-- 21:29, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the domain. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 07:49, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per above. Naconkantari 15:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Just tried adding *ttp:// but it says check spam list. However, can't see any problem with it - no adverts etc.. Any chance of it being removed from the spam list. Thank you -- 12:25, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Please see discussion above. Naconkantari 23:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
Viartis is an international medical research organisation. So is it possible that the former banned member is merely responsible for adding the web site, as the web page itself appears to be quite harmless ? --Tracer 11:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
You're probably thinking of's homepage has a hit counter that is at 130, definately not a professional organization's site. Naconkantari 21:41, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
It appears that you have referred to the core domain name web page ( However, that does not appear to be used by them. The web page that is the basis for their detailed information and that is referred to on various medical web sites all begins with That information site has a much higher hit counter. --Tracer 14:06, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I was mistaken. Thanks for showing me the actual page on the site. Naconkantari 16:16, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Keith, you're not fooling anyone. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  22:43, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

But I am not "Keith". So please explain what is offensive about *ttp:// Isn't a web site supposed to be blacklisted because it is an advert or contains pornography, or racism and the like. Or does your personal grievance against "Keith" take precedence over providing useful information for Wikipedia readers ? Precisiely where are the rules concerning which sites should be blacklisted because in this case they appear to have been disregarded. --Tracer 11:26, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
The contributions history make it very apparent that this block is based entirely on personal grievance rather than the content of the web pages. The person that implemented the block asked considered whether the block should be maintained : "So do you think should continue to be blacklisted? -- Netsnipe (Talk) 16:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" The person he asked was Dan Strickland (Profsnow)who is known to have a long standing grievance against the first person to add a link to this web site : "Yes, I do - it's nothing unique and is indeed a slanted presentation. --Dan 16:57, 18 August 2006 (UTC)" NOt only did the content of the web site not support what he had written in the slightest, but Dan Strickland (Profsnow) has continuously added abusive remarks about the original contributor and has been totally obstructive towards him, due to what he perceived as an insulting remark he made against Dan Strickland's mother. The web page itself contains no adverts or offensive content, and is highly relevant to the subject. This is something that nobody here has been able to contradict. Completely in breach of Wikipedia guidelines, the web page is blocked solely due to the personal grievance of one of the editors against the first person to add a link to another page on that web site. It consequently has no justification or rationale in being blocked. --Tracer 12:58, 30 September 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done per spam1 2 3 4.... // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:11, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi! I was just trying to provide a useful link from to, a private web page containing a number of pictures of the train line described in the article. Any chance to get that URL off the list? -- 19:40, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, please have an administrator from add the site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 21:39, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

I tried to edit but it blocks saving due to a link to This site is not spam but useful information. Please remove it from the Blacklist.

X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Used as an external link in Summer roll. See the history here. Not spam. Please add to external links section. I must say it's stupid that I can't put the exact link here because the spam filter stops it! - User:Peregrinefisher

Please see above. Naconkantari 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:33, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


This is a legitimate wiki provider.

X mark.svg Not done, used for multiple spam attacks [107] Naconkantari 15:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is official page of Orange Alternative movement and as such should be available on links regarding Orange Alternative.

X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:36, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I see nothing wrong with this site. It is the new incarnation of one of (if not the oldest) Earthsuit and Earthsuit legacy bands (Mute Math, Macrosick, Club of the Sons) message boards out there with current and future news updates.

Please see above. Naconkantari 15:03, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 17:50, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

proposed removal of blacklist

The web-site has been blocked and prevents the article Sokół from being edited. I have checked and this is a legitimate web-site of the Polish organization Sokół (Sokol} Syrenab 10:54, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Which Wikimedia site are you trying to include the link on? Naconkantari 01:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, no followup from the requesting user. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 18:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please whitelisted this address - this is a nonprofit site about Cracow with pictures. Thanks! - 21:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC) (Gaja from Hungarian Wikipedia)

Despite the site claiming to be "non-profit," it still has lots of ads. Ohnoitsjamie 09:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:18, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the official (Japanese) website of a popular Half-Life 2 modification. The related articles are Wikipedia:Smod and Wikipedia:List of Half-Life 2 mods.

Added to spam whitelist Naconkantari 04:22, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there anything wrong with links to domains inside "sytes .net"? It's in the blacklist, under the section "#urlredir", but I see nothing wrong with sites such as redplanet I was trying to edit this article and I can't because of the filter.

Services such as this one are not allowed because they can easily be used to link to blacklisted sites. Naconkantari 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Many architects' biographies. I don't think it should be blocked. Malafaya 11:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done per June 2006 discussion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:37, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

piranho seems to be a free webspace provider. Please either unblock or add to the white list. Regards, 10:45, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done; please request whitelisting on the local project where you wish to use it. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 19:13, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
As I see it piranho(dot)com is a free webspace provider. This means the majority of websites hosted on will be decent sites. Also the bad site was already removed I suppose according to the rules of this provider.
Please remove from the blacklist!
Otherwise you'd have to add geocities, yahoo, ... for I'm sure there are ab-users on that providers, too.
BTW, where is the reason to blacklist anyway?! Regarding the discussion on "ytmnd" on top of this site I would think there's need for more than one SPAM-Subdomain/Website on a webspace provider to justify blacklisting the whole domain?!
also see [108]!
--Nicetry 22:09, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the site. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 16:45, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would not recommend removing per this google search. Try whitelisting instead. Naconkantari 23:27, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the website of a university. Maybe the 2nd level domain has been used for spam. Please allow this full address. Thanks. Defrenrokorit 15:21, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the site. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would recommend whitelisting, based on this google search. Try whitelisting instead. Naconkantari 23:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

http://(remove) - Added (remove) to generate post. Thank you. from Wikipedia User:Tvccs

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted freewebspace\.com. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would not recommend removal based on this edit. Try whitelisting instead. Naconkantari 23:29, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Can you remove the spam block for http://carsonnewman(dot)free-forums(dot)org. This is a ligit and honest forum.

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted free-forums\.org. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 20:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I would not recomment removing per this google search. Try whitelisting instead. Naconkantari 23:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:35, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

(note I've added spaces to the address so your spam filter doesn't refuse to use it here!) This link is on the Web widgets page. There seems to be no reason for to be blocked. It is a perfectly ordinary site which offers search tools and widgets. Can someone take a look or just remove it. Thanks,

X mark.svg Not done [109] Naconkantari 16:34, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello I wanted to add a link to a page which contains information about the Sheerness Swimming Club & Lifeguard Corps. (In the "swimming clubs in kent" section. The site I want to add a link to, and which is blacklisted, is: http://h ometown.a I've had to add the spaces as your spam filter won't let me post this request without them!

I hope you can help with this.

Many thanks Phil (

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 03:44, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

The domain is one of the most popular (if not the most popular) free domain suppliers, so by blocking it we're basically blocking half of Poland's private webpages, including my own ( It is to be noted that hosting pages is actually their side-business and 99% of pages named are actually located on other servers. Halibutt 14:16, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree, the link seems reasonable enough, though I don't read Polish. Its existing inclusion on the page [110] is blocking my edit of that page.

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello. I recently fixed a bad link to my homepage in my user account section, and this angry blacklist thingie popped up and yelled at me!
Wikipedia user page:
My homepage: freedombeer dot servehttp dot com are domain names that are part of the dynamic DNS system offered by This is just a personal webpage that I'm hosting on my machine at home. As you can see, it's a fairly unexciting webpage with some content I've created and some personal pictures. -- (cnadolski on en.wikipedia) 20:50, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

  • Holy cow look at this blacklist: serve(beer|blog|counterstrike|ftp|game|halflife|http|mp3|pics|quake)\.com . This basically blocks any page served by noip! That could blanket blacklist a whole slew of innocent websites. I don't envy the job of the person who has to maintain the whitelists :) -- (cnadolski on en.wikipedia) 21:35, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
These are all blocked because they are easily exploitable by spammers. If you want to link to your website, I'd suggest requesting whitelisting on your local wiki (en:MediaWiki Talk:Spam-whitelist. Naconkantari 21:37, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
No, it's blocked by serve(beer|blog|counterstrike|ftp|game|halflife|http|mp3|pics|quake)\.com with comment "urlredir". MaxSem 21:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Maybe I should check my log before commenting next time... The "urlredir" reason, however is for two main problems. First, the spammers will still exploit the services so that the links redirect to their sites. Another reason is that blacklisted sites can easily be reinserted into articles by using one of these redirection services. I hope this clears things up. Naconkantari 21:44, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Okay, thanks for the explanation - people exploit no-ip to redirect spam sites. I'll try to get my site whitelisted. Thanks! (Cnadolski on en.wikipedia) 14:28, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Hello, this is a homepage about the Honda Dylan 125. I want wo post it in Wikipedia, because it's a very interesting page about this Scooter and no spam. Thanks a lot.

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari

Hello I wanted to add a link to a page I made a couple of years back which contains interesting information on the village of Ashton in Northamptonshire, UK (relevant Wikipedia page:,_East_Northamptonshire).

The page I want to add a link to, and which is blacklisted, is: http://www.phillips64.netf i r m (I've had to add the spaces else your spam filter won't even let me post this request!

I hope you can help with this.

Many thanks

Mick Phillips Rome, Italy

X mark.svg Not done, added to local whitelist. Naconkantari 19:34, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Similar issue so thought I'd post it under this heading and use the same format... I hadn't even heard of the blacklist until now! I want to add links to photogalleries of three Miss Teen USA 2002 delegates who have articles on Wikipedia (Lauren Barnette, Rachel Smith and Kari Ann Peniche). The URL of the pages is http://www.americanpageant.netf i r m (replacing the name of the state in each case). What can be done? PageantUpdater 05:02, 8 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 04:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Please consider to remove this address, it's to host users home page of an Italian Internet Provider, home page contents quality is surely variable. In 20 sectember I used as external link in it:Romano Prodi to refer at documentary images by professional photografer (/mario.rebeschini/pagina_prodi_menu.html). --Francesco Cosoleto 01:46, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the pattern. —[admin] Pathoschild 22:41, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I'd recommend whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 17:18, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

The German American Dad Page "American Dad World" is on the spam list. The URL is "http : / / americandad2 . am . funpic . de" (without blanks). I wanted to edit the American Dad Section on the German Wikipedia and change with the other URL because the redirection doesn't work at the moment. I have no idea why the page is on the spam list because it's one of the largest German American Dad Sites and I think it would be ok to mention it at the external link list.

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 19:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
But the page is also on the spamlist at 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
There is no local spam blacklist. Please request addition to Wikipedia's spam whitelist; if it is already whitelisted, you should have no trouble adding the link. —[admin] Pathoschild 23:12, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I can't edit the Spam-Whitelist. I can only watch the source code.-- 16:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
The correct link is MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Sorry about the confusion. Naconkantari 16:19, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Feedback wanted before I add a number of links to this list

I'm fairly new to the English-language Wikipedia. I found someone in a block of Canadian IP addresses adding seemingly benign links to Wikipedia, however, when I checked them out, they all had the same links to the same commercial sites at the bottom of the pages. It looks like spamdexing to me. I made a list of the offending IP addresses and affected sites, but did not bother recording the links themselves. Someone just made me aware of this site -- before I spend an hour or two adding these links, I'd like to know that I'm not doing something that will get reversed. For more background information, see:

Is this an appropriate use of this list? Thanks, --A. B. 14:19, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No; the spam blacklist should only be used for widespread spam that is difficult to manage with conventional tools (ie, reversion, protection, and blocking). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:41, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

This page is maintained by Lorna Lynn. She has interviews and biogrpahies of prominent TS personalities. I have Kelly's profile page which also has one interview with her on her article on English wikipedia. But I cannot make further changes to the page because this link has been included in spam blacklist. Please ,. the admins her, take a look at the URL yourself, you will see it's no spam. Unitedroad 06:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:53, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

The URL http:/ / is being blocked by the spam blacklist. This page is an exclusively informative one designed for a United Nations Model which will take place in Bogotá, Colombia, and which is organized by high school students from Colegio San Carlos. Your help would be appreciated.

Please request whitelisting here. Naconkantari 15:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this on the spam blacklist when in the archives it is only listed as uncertain results or not done. If it has something to do with the critical article on Wikipedia that is served from that domain, it certainly looks more like censorship than spam filtering. --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 15:26, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to add a link to this site from my meta page, as I have an account there. Anthony DiPierro 18:46, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
I now request this domain to be removed from the list, because 1) it is not a source of spam as is suggested on the list and 2) it appears to have been added for reasons censorship --Cpt. Morgan (Reinoutr) 09:36, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Request denied. Raul654 01:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

The URL http:/ / is being blocked by the spam blacklist. This page is an exclusively informative one designed to publish internal information from Colegio San Carlos, a high school located in Bogotá, Colombia. Your help would be appreciated.

Please request whitelisting here. Naconkantari 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

The article is vital to the explanation of new insight into the taxonomy of the Western Reef-Heron, and therefore, I request it to be unblocked. Thank you.

This domain was added following botspam (see May 2006 discussion). Please request local whitelisting if you'd like to include particular links. —[admin] Pathoschild 23:56, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

htt*:// remove that from blacklist, that not a site to spam that a site with islamic fatwas, that was uses as Source! 09:24, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 19:39, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

http:/* - Hi, Can I know why this site has been blocked. This is the most extenstive resource on Seraiki language available on internet and I would really like to know the reason for blocking an academic site.

Hi again - Waiting for reasonable answer from any editors around.

Another gentle reminder to the editors (if there are any human editors around)

It was blacklisted because it was spammed by mutiple accounts: en:Special:Contributions/Ffarhann, en:Special:Contributions/ and en:Special:Contributions/ on August 27 on multiple Pakistani related articles. A 147 member forum is not an article reference according to the en:Wikipedia:External links policy. --  Netsnipe  (Talk)  15:56, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi, if somebody tries to insert a reference for, would you remove all references of Yahoo on Wikipedia. The reasoning that someone tried to insert a reference which you think was not appropriate gets the website banned on Wikipedia is beyond my comrehension.

I am sure your reasoning is not valid and I re-esmphasize that this site should be removed from ban list.

Wikipedia is made up of human contribution towards a good cause and there must be a reasonable and democratic way of handling objections rather than mechanically banning and removing sites.

Kindly, please explain in detail if some other reasoning was employed.

X mark.svg Not done, continued spamming across multiple accounts is not acceptable. Naconkantari 16:01, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Who is spamming??? and if somebody is spamming they must be blocked not the websites.

I need attention here or I am requesting for Wikipedia advocacy. If I don't undertsand something, explain it to rather than closing the case on your own.

RiverStone Books Not sure why this publishers website is blocked - can you explain please and unblock if this has been done in error.

Please request whitelisting here. Naconkantari 15:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


Hi, I try to place this link <nowiki>[http://xoomer.]</nowiki> (URL now broken) in an German article, but was blocked. The website is highly academic, so I assume there is no spam problem from them. Udimu

It's been fixed. Naconkantari 19:40, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
many thanx!! Udimu
I am still blocked:-( Udimu
X mark.svg Not done, please request local whitelisting. —[admin] Pathoschild 00:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

That's no spam. The site is an excellent brief tutorial on the Lua programming language.

Please request whitelisting on your local project. Naconkantari 03:16, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

This site was blocked by the spam filter, I suppose, because it is a funpic-site. I would be glad, if it could be removed from the blacklist, because it is a fansite to the German Browsergame Freewar and helps other people without specific CSS-knowlegde to redesign the games layout as they would like it. (Yeah, I know, my English isn't the best at the moment ...) 18:55, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Not done, please request whitelisting on your local wiki. Naconkantari 19:41, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the answer, there's only one problem with this descision - the Browsergame Freewar will soon open it's first English server and lorana.lo will also be translated - shall we ask again, when different languages are avalaible or on the english wikipedia? I would be happy to get an answer :) 19:48, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
You will need to request whitelisting on any wiki you wish to include the link. Naconkantari 19:50, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Thank you very much, I only followed the suggested link from the spam-warning ... I was a little bit confused, but couldn't find a black/white listing on the German WP at the first attempt (I found it already), so I asked here (already hopeful, I wouldn't have to ask in every WP). Excuse the trouble I caused :) 19:58, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Why is this on the blacklist? As far as I know (but that's not much), this is an ordinary Italian newspaper. Not prime quality, but not a likely spam host, I think. It interferes with editing International reactions to the Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy. 23:22, 2 September 2006 (UTC) Looked into the why a bit, and this should be replaced with a filter for * 23:34, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree. I had to remove a link to whilst reverting vandalism on Pope Benedict XVI's article. It's a very well known Italian newspaper. 00:45, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Changed to "". Naconkantari 00:57, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Espresso is one of the most important magazines in Italy. Please, remove from balcklist. I think this was some kind of joke or vandalism. --Jollyroger 14:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Understood part of the problem. Block [was requested] because an user found the site spammed on an article. The spam was from *** Note, *BLOG*. The Espresso blog are of two kinds: one open to public, and one used by famous journalists of the magazine. So, you should block the domain instead (the magazine website).
But, sometimes the journalists blogs are considered a good source (or these journalists have a article themselves). And the IP after that request gave others related to the same article, spammed with totally different links. So I think it is simply a vandalism made using a random link, not related to Repubblica or Espresso. Maybe, we could even completely lift the block on that domain. --Jollyroger 14:44, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg Already fixed. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:45, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Looking for an explanation as to why some kind here keeps removing a very valuable resource in the nascar section he has now blackliusted or requested a blacklist based on his own personal vendetta due to the fact that he owns a nascar blog. The site in question is and it is a very valuable nascar resource that should not be blacklisted and seriously considered for inclusion in the nascar section for any nascar fan or person interested in learning about NASCAR. They can find information on tracksm race outcomes, ask questions to seasoned members of the community. I feel anyone searching wikipedia for nascar infomation would find it truly a valuable asset and be happy it was linked to. I am not affiliated with this site in any way. -- 19:22, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

I've notified the administrator who blacklisted the domain. —[admin] Pathoschild 22:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I was the one who requested Naconkantari to re-add it to the blacklist, as I noticed someone posting the link, which I thought to be impossible as it blacklist. I proceeded to check, and saw that it had been removed. I'd requested it to be added back in March after a spammer using multiple IPs (who I believe to be this same user, now with a different IP and a username) and no matter what we did (even after periods of semi-protection), he came back, so I eventually requested its addition to the blacklist (See pretty much any of the diffs here, there's some on the previous and next history pages as well; as well as more diffs from separate pages: [111] [112] [113] [114] [115] [116] [117]). It was added by several different IPs, including [118] [119] [120] [121] [122]. If that's not enough, the user complaining about his site being on the blocklist has an IP and an account used almost entirely for spamming links ([123] and [124]), including the site he's trying to get unblocked ([125] [126]). His style seems to be the exact same as that of the above IPs, as is the way he's making what I would consider personal attacks against me. His website does not meet any of the criteria for inclusion, and since he can't seem to understand why, it's gotta stay blocked. User talk:SonicAD on Wikipedia 23:15, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
I remember the vandal too. Definitely keep blocked, for the user was persistent and irritating. Royalbroil 05:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC) Royalbroil's talk (WikiProject NASCAR member on the English Wikipedia)

I see no reason for that site be blocked either, it does not to be any type of a spam site but a decent looking forum. And certainly not a typical spam topic. Being that it seems to be part of the NASCAR community I would agree that it may need reconsideration. After careful reading the original edits were done but an editor who maintains a NASCAR blog and has personal ties to the topic which does not appear to be equal and unbiased.

I believe the above message to be from the same person who has spammed this nascarspace site, as well as complained about it being blocklisted here. Going by the myriad of different IPs he used to get it on, including some from AOL (which the above message is from, though that IP specifically did not take partin any ealier spamming to NASCAR related pages, so far as I can tell), it's likely that blocking his site is the only thing that has a chance of stopping him. Since I've taken a big role, both then and now in dealing with this spammer, I'm certain that he's trying to take down my credibility, both by his earlier messages directed towards me, and the ones here which also appear to be directed to me. He continually makes arguments based on false logic, or avoids the issue (as he has here), and so his site must remain blocked, or else we'll face another night like a few months ago with some 75+ reverts. User talk:SonicAD on Wikipedia
X mark.svg Not done. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


I tried to add a wikiqoute to an Charles Baudelaire article in russian (Бодлер%2C_Шарль) and got a message that a page I'm trying to edit is blocked by Spam Filter. The message it is shows: "h||p://". I don`t know what's the problerm is. Is anybody does?

Please use your local whitelist (ask an administrator). "" is blacklisted. Naconkantari 15:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add to link list at the Flatout page, but get a blacklist error. I did a search of the blacklist and did not find in list. I do not know why my site is being block. If this could be fix, it would be great.

Yes check.svg Naconkantari blacklisted prv\.pl, which matches that link; please contact them for more information or request removal in the appropriate section above. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


It appears that URLs like "" are being suppressed when only "" is on the blacklist. At least that seems to be what is happening when saving an edit to en:Typewriter, which has a link to "ht...p://" but gets a spam prot filter msg citing the site "ht...p://". - 23:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg Disambiguating *.com URLs causes more difficulties than this problem is worth; please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

I tried to add to link list at the Flatout page, but get a blacklist error. I did a search of the blacklist and did not find in list. So I do not know why is being block. If this could be fix, would be much appreciated.

Was trying to add * - Home to the modders of Flatout 1 & 2

Purple44 master track maker for FOv3 mod

I just read error again and is being backlisted because of this site flatoutvideo

Yes check.svg I have no difficulties saving that link. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Please add to the while list. I'm aware that there are previous requests on other * domains. is currently linked from en:Russian ruble --Chochopk 09:30, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please request on this page. Naconkantari 15:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Problem adding to Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2006_September_12

When I try to add an afd3 to the log, I get a spam protection filter for I don't see that in the text and I really doubt any virus has managed to attach itself to the prerelease version of Mac OS X Safari I'm running, especially since the afd1 and afd2 worked fine. -- 19:24, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

  • ok, how do I put my wp signature here? Over there I'm Jamoche -- 19:33, 12 September 2006 (UTC)
  • It's working now -- 22:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

This is a corporate web site that was high-jacked a number of years ago. Product GeoBase is listed here as is word geofence.

X mark.svg I'm not sure what the purpose of your comment is. Are you requesting that be blacklisted? If so, please request in the appropriate section above, and remember to sign and date your comment by appending "~~~~". // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:13, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Minor-editing en:Lemniscate of Bernoulli to add inter-wikies I've got spam warning. The link to the polish site is fairly legitimate in that context. Similarly I would expect the reason to include the site in the BL was legitimate too. It might be that the site it some sort of portal where everyone can upload whatever (s)he wants (dunno, just guessing - I do not know Polish). I saved the page commenting the link but it is a good-to-have. -- Goldie ± (talk) 15:22, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Support, this issue has surfaced in few other articles. is like Polish geocities - a fairly popular webhosting services. It should be removed from spamlist.--Piotrus 23:25, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
Yes check.svg The link is no longer in the article. Piotrus, please request removal of links in the appropriate section above; note that requests to remove have been repeatedly denied in the past (search "Republika" in the archives index). // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:17, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Copyediting of szczebrzeszyn caused spam warning to pop up due to this an external link to this site. Probably caused by the same thing as in the previous post ( I'm not sure if the site should be removed from the blacklist or from the wikipedia listing.

Yes check.svg I have no difficulties saving that link; it may have been whitelisted locally. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

w:Józef Piłsudski includes a reference citation to a web page from this blacklisted domain. I have no idea what the site is, but I don't want to remove a legitimate citation. What now? -- JHunterJ 00:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

X mark.svg please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:20, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Nový Bor

Spam filter preventing edit because ''. I think exception should be made for that specific url in the article, as it is relevant to it. -- 04:07, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Please list the full domain so it can be added to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 01:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It is most likely, some texts and photo gallery from Novy Bor and the area around. Pavel Vozenilek 14:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

"mujweb\.cz" was already twice removed from the blacklist (see /Archives). Why was it reincluded (currently listed by Amgine)? Is there a general rule for free webhosting that it should be blacklisted? ~~helix84 13:41, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

"" is a domain that is unfortunately frequently used by spammers. As a result, the domain has been blacklisted. We can, however, add specific subdomains to the whitelist so they are not blocked. 16:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg Please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:21, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


I can't edit this article because of a "spam-filter". -- 21:46, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Please petition an administrator to add the domain to your local whitelist. More information can be found at en:MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist. Naconkantari 04:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Link on en: Vila Tugendhat

A link to website of Slovak architects got caught by the filter. The content is likely placed on a hosting site, blocked here. I am noit able to determine which one. The link (and the site) is quite valuable. Pavel Vozenilek 14:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

More specifically the is the problem. Pavel Vozenilek 23:21, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
X mark.svg The site is blacklisted per the June 2006 discussion. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:23, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Okay, right...

On Wikipedia. I'm trying to edit w:Lex Luthor. Right. And then it tells me ... spam protection bla bla bla.... "The following text is what triggered our spam filter: []" Naturally, since Lex is a DC comics character, the link is in there a couple billion times. I checked the blacklist though, and I couldn't find it. I tried to say the link with an http:// here but got the same error. What gives? Thanks. Zythe 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The same problem with w:Batman. I'd say that a link to DC Comics would be appropriate there... —Josiah Rowe 23:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Same thing, only Chrono Cross and -- 22:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, having the same problem with en:Metal Gear Solid 3: Snake Eater and Gamecritics (which is being used in a ref). A Man In Black 00:20, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Turns out the issue is a blacklist on cs\.com. This is a legit blacklist, but it's blocking any URL that includes, including gamecritiCS.COM. Can this blacklist be changed to "\.cs\.com", to prevent's various subdomains but nothing else? A Man In Black 00:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. Naconkantari 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC) and (from amnesty international) is blocked, because is in the blacklist. Can we change that, for it should be possible to insert weblinks from That's an information site, not spam. Hagupe 08:26, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Please request whitelisting on this page. Naconkantari 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC) is on the blacklist, but somehow en:User: continued to add it to en:Datasheet. That IP is now blocked, but somebody ought to check to see how the blacklist is being evaded. —Josiah Rowe 00:17, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I dont even see the purpose of this blacklist, it doesnt seem to work. There are additions that have been added for over a week now. MatthewFenton 09:21, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Edits like this one will not be filtered as it is not a link, but plain text. The blacklist only works on links between [ ]'s. Naconkantari 21:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Minor edit blocked for no reason

When I try to remove the template in w:en:Talk:Katakana, it says I've added the site What? I can't even find that site on the talkpage. The ikiroid 22:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I've edited that page to remove the link, so you should be able to edit it now. I found it (with Internet Explorer) by clicking in the edit box, hitting CTRL-F to pull up the search dialog, and searching for "tinyurl". Neil916 15:02, 30 August 2006 (UTC)


I'm triying post the list of broken links on ESwiki , but i can't because a broken lin is in the blacklist. The list is generated by a bot called Thanks and sorry for my poor english. --Jorgechp 23:01, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Should be fixed by now. Naconkantari 15:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

RPG XP is a German Ressource and Script site for the RPG Maker XP

Please ask an administrator on the project you are trying to place the link to add it to the spam blacklist. Naconkantari 21:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

This site doesn't contain spam. Instead it's a very very useful source for additional information to some articels in the German Wikipedia. Could you please remove it from the blacklist? User:Eribula 17:56, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Please ask an administrator on to add the site to the spam whitelist. Naconkantari 21:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Carrying out a minor edit to Renault 5 and was greeted by the message The following text is what triggered our spam filter: http://hometown (dot) but the URL it's detecting, http://hometown (dot), is legitimate. Is there any way the blacklist can accommodate this sort of page but disallow spamming of the sort seen above from 22:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Please request local whitelisting. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Some days ago, I requested to add, and to the spam list. It was supposely done, but there must be a syntax error, because links can still be added to (the two other links are correctly blacklisted). Can you please fix this ? -Ash Crow 09:56, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done Fixed. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 21:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)


There seems to be some sort of problem with the en:Talk:Chess page, I cant save anything there, as the spam filter activates. Could someone take a look at it? 16:00, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done, link removed. 16:25, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Polish Navy

For the Article, there is an external link to 'Association of the "ORZEŁ" submarine search group'[127]. The spam blocker likes it not, although the external site content appears to be appropriate. Also there is a misspelling of "teritory" in the article. -- 00:49, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Fixed. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:43, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Polish articles

Karol Świerczewski on wikiedpia << i cannot make minor wiki adjustments on this article. there are external links.. but mostly historical/governmental.. can't edit page please help!! -- 10:23, 10 September 2006 (UTC) (user max rspct)

Yes check.svg I have no trouble saving that page. // [admin] Pathoschild (talk/map) 01:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC) 2 & 3

Hi. I was blocked in pages Coat of arms of Korwin and List of Polish coat of arms images when I was doing an edition. Thank you to fix them both and also to fix User:Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin.

I have no trouble saving any of those pages. // —[admin] Pathoschild 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC) 00:11, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Be more careful

I would like to request more carefulness when adding patterns to the black list. As we merge those blacklists between multiple wikis, it does not only harm wikimedia based stuff if you put wrong stuff here, but also moin and twiki based wikis all over the world (that use the merged lists).

For example, a recent addition was "cs\.com". Well, that matches,,, and maybe some thousands other non-spam domains.

The spam merging process is automatic btw, but removal of wrong patterns there currently is manually done by me (even if you remove them again from your list), so please: first think, then add!

-- ThomasWaldmann, you can reach me on IRC freenode #moin or #wiki

Blocked from posting on talk pages

Why am I blocked by the Spamfilter from posting on the talk pages?

You're going to have to provide at least the page name you're trying to edit and the project you're trying to edit on. Naconkantari 03:33, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

-- 03:28, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to post on the Consensus WP:CON talk page.--Pravknight 04:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
It's been fixed. Naconkantari 04:21, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
Now it's happening again. What's going on here?-- 02:36, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
I have no trouble saving that page. —[admin] Pathoschild 03:33, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked

The page Polish coat of arms images is still blocked. Please help me. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 04:42, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is OK right now. Thak you Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Still blocked 2

This page is still blocked: Coat of arms of Korwin. Can you help me please? Thank you. Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 06:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

It is OK right now. Thak you Gustavo Szwedowski de Korwin 01:49, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm trying to discuss a link on w:Talk:Logo but can't post because the link has been unjustly placed in the spam list. The article is locked- please let us finish the discussion by removing the link from the spam list. Cochese8 17:31, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

You can simply add the link without the "http://" prefix (e.g. ""). Korg + + 17:38, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Which link did you want to add? Korg + + 17:40, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
I didn't even mention the link, but since the link was on the page before, it appears that I can't modify the talk page at all. By the way, it was the code-interactive link that was preventing discussion. Thanks for your help- I'll try to remove the http Cochese8 17:48, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Ok, fine. Korg + + 18:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
Still not allowing any post. Status? Cochese8 18:28, 3 October 2006 (UTC)
It has been fixed, so you should be able to post a new message there. Korg + + 21:05, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Russian ruble

Can anyone check this article in the English wiki? I'm trying to revert domr vsndalism but it's bringing up a spam blacklist warning and won't let me do it. Regards, 00:04, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

The spam blacklist is being triggered by the second to last external link ("Coins of the Russian Federation"); I'll place that specific domain on the spam whitelist in the English Wikipedia, and that should fix the problem. Thanks! Flcelloguy (A note?) 14:03, 6 October 2006 (UTC)