MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/January 2008

message: Ridetheslut.com is a commercial site that parodies the South Lake Union Streetcar's by taking advantage of an incorrect nickname for the streetcar, South Lake Union Trolley. The site has no encyclopedic value and has been repeatedly added to the streetcar's article. See the edit history of  for 5 examples of the website being added to the streetcar's article. --71.231.140.53 (talk) 02:33, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: . User has been warned and blocked temporarily and seems to b isolated to a few pages origionating from a single IP, no need to blacklist yet. Report back if there is continued spamming. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 02:48, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ridetheslut.com 

message: Long term sneaky dynamic IP spam. Most IPs added one or two links only. See also WT:WPSPAM#Long term sneaky spamming of spam.searchindia.com. Roughly 5 x-wiki links. MER-C 13:39, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: & thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:50, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: searchindia.com

message: Account:
*
Domains:
*
*
*
: --A. B. (talk)  17:11, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: netcars.co.uk

message: Domain:
*arcanna.com
**
Account:
*
:--A. B. (talk)  14:32, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Arcanna Inc. brand development spam

message: Accounts
*
*
Domains:
*
*
*
*
*
*
Related domains:
*
*
*
*
*
Adsense ID: 2631860827861266
:--A. B. (talk)  16:59, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  nintendohost.com domains

message: Domains:
*
*
*
*
*
*
Reference:
*Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/IncidentArchive341#Pgillman and spamming for Call Reassurance
Prolific article spammer; see list on user talk page:
*
Will blacklist later when I have time. Haven't removed all links yet. Got to run now.--A. B. (talk)  17:45, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  --A. B. (talk)  17:35, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: [[User:Pgillman|Pgillman]] spam

message: See WT:WPSPAM#spam.travelphotobase.com. Still spamming despite block of 72.156.100.204. MER-C 02:37, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Versageek 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: travelphotobase.com

message: This is the new URL of the uffnet.com (currently blacklisted) spammer. See article histories at Hipcrime (Usenet) and X-No-Archive - Ehheh (talk) 03:21, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: home.graffiti.net/thefaqs/

message: Spam domain:
*
Related domains:
*
*
*
Account:
*
--A. B. (talk)  17:38, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  --A. B. (talk)  17:43, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tritickets.com

message: *
Squidward posted a link to here, telling people to vandalize Wikipedia, using this picture. Since this website is only used on one page in the entire site, it might be a good idea to blacklist this URL to prevent Squidward vandalism. Nwwaew (Talk Page) (Contribs) (E-mail me) 01:15, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Just thinking - Meta might be more appropriate - may well do it later unless there are other views? --Herby talk thyme 08:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: unitedspongebob.com

message: * 
Commercial site which sells memorabilia, that has been indiscriminately added to a variety of Liverpool F.C.-related articles by various IPs - 
 
. See also:
*Special:Contributions/82.31.122.52
*Special:Contributions/82.31.122.47
*Special:Contributions/82.31.122.184
for more. Repeated warnings have gone unheeded. Qwghlm (talk) 09:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed - unencyclopaedic in content too  & thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:04, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: retroreds.co.uk

message: *
Returning spammer. See WT:WPSPAM#spam.comedybox.tv. MER-C 12:24, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: --Herby talk thyme 12:46, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: comedybox.tv

message: Domain:
*
Accounts:
* (shouldn't be blocked as it is a shared IP)
*
*
* (back in 2004)
* (back in 2004)
Examples:
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Primary_election&diff=prev&oldid=181658323
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dennis_Kucinich_presidential_campaign%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=181996205
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Elizabeth_Kucinich&diff=prev&oldid=181923099
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iowa_Democratic_caucuses%2C_2008&diff=prev&oldid=181914374
*http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Iowa_caucus&diff=prev&oldid=181911660
Mushroom (Talk) 00:57, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: . Found  also --Hu12 (talk) 18:14, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The same accounts also spammed bessereweltlinks.de, a related site, on de.wikipedia -- consider meta blacklisting. --A. B. (talk)  04:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: betterworldlinks.org

message: This is a new domain for the albumofthemonth.com spammer (albumofthemonth.com is already blacklisted locally). See this older entry:
*Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2007 Archive Sep#albumofthemonth.com
Spam domain:
*
Related domain:
*
Spam sockpuppets:
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
#
:: --A. B. (talk)  19:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: top-reviews.co.uk

message: *www.geocities.com/snuffbottle1/ Chinese snuff bottle expert to Snuff bottle
#
#
#
This same user keeps on (In total, 7 times.) adding the same external link despite repeated warnings of spamming. The third IP was blocked previously for this but keeps on coming back. Now the user has switched to a new IP. - see talk page. 
Humortueio (talk) 16:36, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:50, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: geocities.com/snuffbottle1

message: ;Accounts:
*
*
*
*
;Spam domain:
;Spam article:
*Yuwie.com
**Deleted 6 times
--A. B. (talk)  01:48, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:51, 8 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Yuwie.com

message: ;Spam site 
;Evidence:
 
These are all AOL anons and pointless to block. 
Ronnotel (talk) 15:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: FinMath.com

message: ;Spam domains:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
;Related domains:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
;Accounts:
*
*
*
*
IP range 130.94.123.96 - 130.94.123.127 is registered to ContinuedEd.com
;Deleted articles and images
*Teen Driver Education
*Image:Texasdefensivedrivingcourses.xls
*
--A. B. (talk)  06:08, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  --A. B. (talk)  06:26, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: ContinuedEd.com spam on Wikipedia

message: *
We would like this web address to be added to the spam list. This ip and this user continuously spammed the following website in this article Empire: Total War. --SkyWalker (talk) 11:00, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Both IP & user given final warnings.  Blacklisting without a little more interaction with those who are placing links would be a bit rushed.  Equally if it is only that page that is affected then some level of protection may be adequate?  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:07, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Ok thanks, I hope the warning would work. Nah, the page does not require protection. Is this just that nick and the ip keep spamming their sites in that article so i thought it would be best if the link is blacklisted. They have spamming the sites from January 1st 2008 till [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Empire:_Total_War&diff=183603417&oldid=183600625 today and even before January 1st they were spamming. Take a look at the history page. Everything is right there. :). --SkyWalker (talk) 11:35, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  See now he is attacking me  and he spammed again  --SkyWalker (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: empiretotalwar.co.uk

message: This is an e-commerce site for a service called Play65 which allows users to play backgammon for money. It has twice been added to backgammon by two different, but similar IPs. Diffs:   --Steven J. Anderson (talk) 02:29, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Arguably more "nuisance" than real problem but given the changing IPs  thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:19, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: prokopczyk.net

message: ;Domain:
*
;Accounts:
*
*
--A. B. (talk)  17:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Self promotional spam posted by an IP's associated with the organization. Enough time wasted, not needed on the project. --Hu12 (talk) 18:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: tradingeconomics.com

message: Ask Greg is the website where Greg Weisman discussess and responds to questions about his work. This includes television shows like Gargoyles_(TV_series) and The_Spectacular_Spider-Man_(TV_series) as well as Gargoyles_(SLG_comic). The latter two are currently in production and news and information about both often are revealed first through Ask Greg. It's a vast archive of information which is often used for citation of various facts relating to these and other projects of Weisman's. By blocking this site you're disabling users to cite references that contain important and relevant information. As a result pages like the Gargoyles_(TV_series) entry are marked as not citing references. The reason for there being no references is because Ask Greg has been blocked. 
I believe the reason for the blacklisting in the first place was due to a user trying to promote a "Gargoyles Wiki", which has no affiliation with Ask Greg, but there is a link to it from Ask Greg. The user, after being blocked from linking to the Gargoyles Wiki, started using links to Ask Greg with instructions to use the link on Ask Greg to get to the Wiki. Ask Greg was a victim of someone abusing Wikipedia policy, but not itself an abuser. It's an important resource that deserves to be removed from the blacklist.207.206.239.1 (talk) 20:11, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Extensively spammed based on this.  I wouldn't envisage whitelisting it - any other views? --Herby talk thyme 12:06, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing else heard - closed as  --Herby talk thyme 09:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.s8.org/gargoyles/askgreg 

message: I think it's unproductive to question the motives of editors. It's clear that no one is being intentionally obstructive, and I beg those who want the site un-blacklisted to stay focused on the merits of the links, not the contributers. WP:CIVIL. Coming here on a whirlwind after the spam attack put these admins on the defensive, and we should try to ease tensions. For that reason, I would add this subtext to the RfC:
::Should legistorm.com be removed from the blacklist based solely on content (See WP:EL links to include #3) in spite of being initially added by mass spammers?
::Note: this is not a forum for critisizing other editors. Uncivil ccomments will be plated under a  and warnings issued as appropriate.
I also intend to enforce that beginning now. I won't tolerate further incivility. Comments? Cool Hand Luke 23:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ok, back to the RfC question

message: The legistorm.com site has been readded to the Template:CongLinks. In turn, CongLinks has been added to all 13 of the members of the House delegation from New Jersey. Feel free to review these entries at Template:NJ-FedRep for sample coding or to confirm that no spam-related tragedies have occurred due to the removal of the entry from the blacklist. Alansohn (talk) 15:25, 28 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Post-blacklist follow-up

message: I don't quite understand why this page is blacklisted as spam. Ok, I've read that it is a self-published site, but does it do that big harm? I mean, the methods of counting sales are listed on the page, it uses mediatraffic.de which is a reliable source here on wiki, but after an album is out of the top 40, it is practically impossible to follow the sales. I mean, ok, the reason was that anybody can make a site..but there is no other site, and the person (or people) doing the site is (are) expert(s), uses mediatraffic then other charts from UK (musicweek.com), and Oricon for Japan, etc. (and it's not like the numbers are so way off, I mean they can be with thousands possibly, but I think every worldwide sale is off, but it isn't like it's millions..) And also, other infos are also estimations at best, editors can write sy sold an "estimated" number of copies when they cite worldwidealbums.net. Also, all I'm saying is that we should only use the site as a last choice, if it is impossible to find any source, and then when other source is available we can change it. And lastly, RIAA certifications and Soundscan Data are also highly different almost always, there is almost always a huge gap between the two sales datas, and we now they count sales differently; e.g. an album can be certified Gold, but then Soundscan strill reports only 3-400,000 copies sold 4-5 months after the certification. So, they are estimations at best, and this site has estimations as well, and we should apply a rule not to use the exact datas here, only if we write e.g. "6, 7 millions", because it's not that big of a problem then, if the site says 7,5 mill, we can write "estimated 7 mill". See? Gocsa (talk) 23:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The background to the listing seems to be here.  It is not the content that determines listing but the placement of excessive links to the site (although there may be views on its reliability as a source.  The .tk version is actually listed on Meta's blacklist due to cross wiki spamming.  Others may have views --Herby talk thyme 11:37, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, but that was my point, that I don't think editors used it as any form of advertising, or spamming, they used it as a primary source, which was - I think - wrong, because there might be "more reliable" sources, but that doesn't mean this site should be banned..I never saw it as spamming really.. Gocsa (talk) 12:21, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

text: thanks Gocsa to defend my site!..i don't know, we only doing estimations, there could be some mistakes, but if we write 7m the ipotetical real data can't be 6m or 8m but AROUND 7m..estimations can have some problems but in a general view they are correct..having data from the biggest countries is so impossible make huge (over 1m) mistakes..Then wikipedia mods can do all they want, is not a problem..if they think that it isn't reliable they can ban it, but remember that almost all the data you will find on official/fan site or magazine articles are fake and anyone with a bit of experience in chart world can confirm it ;) Zagozagozago (talk) 19:45, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that your site and the UKMIX Forums are accurate to a degree, but Wikipedia can only go with reliable sources. The fact that it's hard to find up-to-date sales for albums off the top 40 isn't really an excuse to settle for self-published sites and forums. I'm not saying your is bad or anything, but this is an encyclopedia, so we can only go with reputable sources. Spellcast (talk) 20:14, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I mean I love Wikipedia and everything, and of course I agree with and support the concept of reliable sources. But sometimes I see really stupid things written, and they are accepted by everyone just because a so-called reliable, reputable site is cited. E.g. the Iron Maiden article I've mentioned. My point is just that we shouldn't blindly follow the reputable sites, sometimes just question their reliability, and check other (2,3 or more) sources..but album sales aren't even that big of an issue, I mean is it that big harm to humanity if we cite an estimation? It's not like saying the number of African elephants has tripled, if you know what I mean. And as Zagozagozago said, the so-called official numbers are also quite on the fake side..they are estimations, and many times the record company says the band has sold this or that much albums, and I hope you're not that naive to believe that record companies want to tell the real numbers, or less..their obvious aim is to say a bit higher number..or a lot.. And in many articles the band's official site (i.e. the record company) is cited..  Gocsa (talk) 21:02, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Agree..almost all what we call "reliable source" give fake data (usually inflated), wikipedia now is full of inflated data put by fans (they write always the "biggest" numbers they find on the net..) and some of them are from "reliable source"..but is obvious that are fake.so called "offical sources" sometimes give laughable data, now i'm thinking to the 104millions for Thriller, write also on Guinnes book..and all the times that in the articles they consider the sales of "album+singles" as one..or also when they consider "shipments data" and not sales.I know is a encyclopedia and it should have only "official" data..but if we continue to trust to articles,artists site or labels we continue to have data like the 104millions for Thriller everywhere.. Zagozagozago (talk) 00:36, 27 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  worldwidealbums.net 

message: In writing an article on Rob Swire, Manchester United's physio, I referenced an interview with him from Physioroom.com. However, it appears that all links from that website have been blacklisted. Would it be possible to get this website un-blacklisted? – PeeJay 23:35, 30 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will find the background to the listing here with link reports here.  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there any way that the site could be temporarily un-listed so that I could post the link as a reference in the article? – PeeJay 00:12, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:   --Hu12 (talk) 00:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  www.physioroom.com 

message: I have no idea why it's blocked, I want to use it as an external link in an article.--The Dominator (talk) 15:26, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Please don't cross post MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#szlemberk.xf.cz.2F--Hu12 (talk) 15:40, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Seems to have been blocked at meta.wikimedia.org.--Hu12 (talk) 15:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Meaning?--The Dominator (talk) 15:46, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to make the request at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: We will look into the archives to find out why it was blacklisted, but You could consider to put it on the local whitelist, if it is not removed. MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#szlemberk.xf.cz, thanks, --birdy (:> )=| 16:53, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see Foreign-language links External links policies on Links normally to be avoided--Hu12 (talk) 17:01, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: szlemberk.xf.cz/

message: == wartpictures.blogspot.com ==
Herby added this one added at my request, but the wrong url ended up because I worded my request a bit confusingly. The domain to be blocked question is wartpictures.blogspot.com . See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#skin-disease-pictures.blogspot.com. Han-Kwang (t) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed thanks & no problem I should have checked, cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. But now the spammer changed the URL into wart-pictures.blogspot.com. diff The blacklisting did help for all the other ones, though. Han-Kwang (t) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regex adjusted to include both, and other possible permutations. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mr.Z-man, nicely done & appreciated --Herby talk thyme 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

text: No the restriction is applying to everyone (I checked your link, and it is indeed blacklisted). blog.myspace.org seems to be blacklisted globally (ie on all projects using the spam filter, not only Wikipedia), you should probably request assistance there. -- lucasbfr talk 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, it appears this was done from a request by Jimbo Wales, I don't know the specifics here. -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - this one has been discussed on Meta and Lucasbfr is correct.  That said if an established editor has a valid rationale for a specific link I would certainly consider the request seriously --Herby talk thyme 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information.  I'm an "established editor" in the sense that I've edited a lot of article in the past 4½ years (and created quite a few before the Seigenthaler controversy), but most of my contributions are made without logging in so I may not be established enough for the purpose.  In The Capricorns, I introduced this reference for a quote and evidence of the band's inactivity (one of the infobox fields).  If you follow that link you'll see the workaround was to link to their main myspace page and reference the blog entry by name.  It would be better to link directly to the blog entry itself.  I know that MySpace distinguishes "MySpace Music" from other areas of its social network, but I wasn't able to figure out if that would help get pass the spam blacklist. 67.100.128.85 (contribs) (fka 68.167.252.41 (contribs)) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe more correctly then a "named user".  Nothing personal about you or your IP address but they are transient things and the IP above only has one day's edits on it.  I wouldn't say no solely on that basis but more info about why a link is needed, whether the information can be got elsewhere, what specific link would be needed etc would be required.  That said I would suggest you do create an account.  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I fail to see the logic in allowing blogspot and disallowing Myspace blogs. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr talk 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy Wales ordered the ban on Myspace blogs, and he didn't order any ban on Blogspot blogs. Unfortunately, it's as simple as that. (further reading) Mike R (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Mike :) --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

text: nm.  found it. Taemyr (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

text: I see what you mean (& have just removed the link again).  Go for some dialogue with the user (seems to have created an account now) before it becomes a case for listing I think.  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

text: Not a direct answer (I suspect the answer will be "no",  btw), but you could remove the http: parts from the links and/or put them in nowiki tags. --kingboyk (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Kingboyk is right. This is why Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive115#Virtualology_and_Stanley_L._Klos_--_boon_to_our_historical_articles_or_just_a_bain_of_spam.3F. --Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the affected articles are ones I started or contributed substantially to. I have always understood that Appleton's is not entirely reliable, and have never started any article based only on info from it, without verifying from other sources. In a few cases, however, Appleton's was the only source I thought appropriate to list as a reference, as the other sources were sketchy or not so germaine; now I have articles on my Watchlist that have no references at all. I certainly would have liked to contribute to the (rather polarized!) discussion you cited. However, at this point, I would just appreciate it if the Powers That Be would let me run my own Sandbox with my own Useful Tools. They might also give me the power to lock my own door, so to speak, so that innocent passersby can't see the heinous acts I commit with unauthorized tools in the privacy of my own sandbox. PS: how come, if they are so evil, we still have wikiarticles on Klos and Virtualology?--BillFlis (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is private here, and even "your" sandbox isn't really yours, Bill. --kingboyk (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Discussion 

message: Herby added this one added at my request, but the wrong url ended up because I worded my request a bit confusingly. The domain to be blocked question is wartpictures.blogspot.com . See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#skin-disease-pictures.blogspot.com. Han-Kwang (t) 18:37, 7 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fixed thanks & no problem I should have checked, cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks. But now the spammer changed the URL into wart-pictures.blogspot.com. diff The blacklisting did help for all the other ones, though. Han-Kwang (t) 16:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Regex adjusted to include both, and other possible permutations. Mr.Z-man 16:28, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Mr.Z-man, nicely done & appreciated --Herby talk thyme 16:32, 8 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  wartpictures.blogspot.com 

message: I encountered the black list for the first time when I attempted to cite a band's blog entry as a reference in The Capricorns.  Is this a restriction applying only to contributions from the unregistered?  If not, is there a recommended way to get pass this black listing for such a reference?  Thanks. —  07:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No the restriction is applying to everyone (I checked your link, and it is indeed blacklisted). blog.myspace.org seems to be blacklisted globally (ie on all projects using the spam filter, not only Wikipedia), you should probably request assistance there. -- lucasbfr talk 10:05, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That being said, it appears this was done from a request by Jimbo Wales, I don't know the specifics here. -- lucasbfr talk 10:10, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes - this one has been discussed on Meta and Lucasbfr is correct.  That said if an established editor has a valid rationale for a specific link I would certainly consider the request seriously --Herby talk thyme 14:50, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the information.  I'm an "established editor" in the sense that I've edited a lot of article in the past 4½ years (and created quite a few before the Seigenthaler controversy), but most of my contributions are made without logging in so I may not be established enough for the purpose.  In The Capricorns, I introduced this reference for a quote and evidence of the band's inactivity (one of the infobox fields).  If you follow that link you'll see the workaround was to link to their main myspace page and reference the blog entry by name.  It would be better to link directly to the blog entry itself.  I know that MySpace distinguishes "MySpace Music" from other areas of its social network, but I wasn't able to figure out if that would help get pass the spam blacklist. 67.100.128.85 (contribs) (fka 68.167.252.41 (contribs)) 06:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe more correctly then a "named user".  Nothing personal about you or your IP address but they are transient things and the IP above only has one day's edits on it.  I wouldn't say no solely on that basis but more info about why a link is needed, whether the information can be got elsewhere, what specific link would be needed etc would be required.  That said I would suggest you do create an account.  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:06, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I fail to see the logic in allowing blogspot and disallowing Myspace blogs. Am I missing something? -- lucasbfr talk 14:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jimmy Wales ordered the ban on Myspace blogs, and he didn't order any ban on Blogspot blogs. Unfortunately, it's as simple as that. (further reading) Mike R (talk) 14:34, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Per Mike :) --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing a band's MySpace blog entries as references 

message: Spam-blacklist is blocking editing on Wikipedia:WikiProject Missing encyclopedic articles/Hot/H.  I can not find the link blocked on the page though. Taemyr (talk) 09:54, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: nm.  found it. Taemyr (talk) 09:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spam-blacklist blocking. 

message: Would groups-beta.google.com be an appropriate blacklist? (Context in the recent history of Devic's disease) --Arcadian (talk) 01:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I see what you mean (& have just removed the link again).  Go for some dialogue with the user (seems to have created an account now) before it becomes a case for listing I think.  Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:25, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: groups-beta.google.com

message: I have been using famousamericans.net, which evidently has recently been blacklisted, as a useful reference for over a year and I have many links to it in my personal sandbox for articles (historical people) I am working on. Now when I want to edit even a part of my sandbox, I am thwarted by the block, even if that part doesn't contain any link to the blocked site. Could User pages be excluded from such blocking?--BillFlis (talk) 14:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a direct answer (I suspect the answer will be "no",  btw), but you could remove the http: parts from the links and/or put them in nowiki tags. --kingboyk (talk) 17:15, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup, Kingboyk is right. This is why Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Archive115#Virtualology_and_Stanley_L._Klos_--_boon_to_our_historical_articles_or_just_a_bain_of_spam.3F. --Hu12 (talk) 17:27, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of the affected articles are ones I started or contributed substantially to. I have always understood that Appleton's is not entirely reliable, and have never started any article based only on info from it, without verifying from other sources. In a few cases, however, Appleton's was the only source I thought appropriate to list as a reference, as the other sources were sketchy or not so germaine; now I have articles on my Watchlist that have no references at all. I certainly would have liked to contribute to the (rather polarized!) discussion you cited. However, at this point, I would just appreciate it if the Powers That Be would let me run my own Sandbox with my own Useful Tools. They might also give me the power to lock my own door, so to speak, so that innocent passersby can't see the heinous acts I commit with unauthorized tools in the privacy of my own sandbox. PS: how come, if they are so evil, we still have wikiarticles on Klos and Virtualology?--BillFlis (talk) 19:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing is private here, and even "your" sandbox isn't really yours, Bill. --kingboyk (talk) 16:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Blacklisted link on my User Page