Links to this unnnotable wiki have begun getting more and more prevalent, as both inappropriate "sources" and as external links across various Japanese actor articles. They are beeing added by IPs and registered users, so I don't think an IP block can help. Recent removals include three links removed from Yūya Yagira, 4 instances from Joo Jong-hyuk, 2 instances from Risa Kudō. There are now hundreds, if not thousands, of links to this wiki. This is no Memory Alpha. It is not an established wiki for using in ELs, and certainly not a valid source. I feel a blacklist is necessary to address this issue and stop this flood of spam. Additionally, the main site "d-addicts.com" actively promotes the downloading of illegal copyrighted versions of licensed series, which is a violation of WP:COPYRIGHT. It also has a secondary wiki on fansubs. Not sure if its better to just block d-addicts.com all together or just this problematic one. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 10:19, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There are now 675 links to this site across Wikipedia, with users of the site continuing to add more and more under the false impression that existing links equals endorsement of this site. Something really needs to be done. Manual removal is a very slow process, so if there is a bot that can snag them all, that would be nice. At least one purveyor of the spam, User:Tohru-chan has been identified, but they have done it primarily on a small scale and mostly in trying to spam a single article (which is what brought this site to my attention). -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 14:42, 5 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
While I agree that this isn't a reliable source and is likely to violate WP:EL, on a practical note there are now 817 links to this site and blacklisting this would disable editing on all the pages with those links. Do you have any proposal as to how that could be mitigated? Stifle (talk) 10:36, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately no. Not unless someone could code a bot that could remove them all. That's part of the problem...there are so many they can't be easily removed and they are just added back over and over so removing them right now seems like a wasted effort. With another group of similar links, folks from the anime and manga project manually removed them all, but there weren't as many links and all of the articles were within its scope. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 15:44, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not feed it to XLinkBot while cleaning? In that way the additions can be controlled to a certain extend (unestablished editors will be reverted). --Dirk BeetstraTC18:06, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/wiki.d-addicts.com -- how do I get a list of link additions given the size of the problem? For now, COIBot is saying "Too many linkwatcher records (612)- ask database maintainer when data is really needed (data will then be dumped on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/wiki.d-addicts.com)."
If this is 5 minutes work for someone, I'd like to see it so I can see who's spamming this as well as how many of these additions are spam and how many are legitimate. On the other hand, if it will take an hour or more, it's not that important.
IP user has been adding Spam links to the above address, onto various user talkpages - I propose that this link get's blacklisted I had proposed it on Meta but was redirect here. Dark Mage09:47, 22 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The spamming of these links continues. Examples here and [2]. Will someone please either blacklist these domains, or tell me that it is not proper to make this request? Thank you. Deli nk (talk) 18:43, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There is no obvious encyclopaedic reason why we would ever want to link to a petition. There are a thousand and one reasons why POV-pushers would want to do so. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:47, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree. While a petition that is in progress might be considered POV, the result of a petition together with the PM's response is definitely of encyclopaedic interest. For example, this petition on road pricing (petitions.number10.gov.uk/traveltax/?signed=d58522c.43f7a2) made major news at the time, gaining over one million signatures. This, together with the PM's response are useful encyclopaedic resources and are referenced in Road pricing. Rather than ban the domain it is much better to police its use. --TimTay (talk) 10:03, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And I'm not suggesting we blacklist number10.gov.uk, where the response and a summary is published. But linking the petition itself would be original research after the fact and inappropriate advocacy before. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.176.82.42 (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This domain has been repeatedly added to dog-related articles. I removed it from 25 en.wikipedia articles yesterday and from pt.wikipedia and no.wikipedia today. After reading this link and this link I can only conclude that this is a criminal scam run from India and it should be blacklisted immediately. The pattern of adding the spam is interesting, a different IP address is used each time, but always from the same Indian-registered ISP. Below are a few of the IP addresses used, but this list is by no means exhaustive:
Is a great site and doesn't count as spam but (and especially) freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com is user-written thus doesn't meet WP:RELIABILITY. There are 7134 hits for "rootsweb" in en and most of those seem to be refs. Saintrain (talk) 01:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If there are hundreds of editors adding thousands of these links, then blacklisting this domain should really get broader discussion and consensus than it would get here with the several editors that are active here. I agree that in general, these links may not be reliable sources, but I don't feel comfortable unilaterally blacklisting the site. I suggest starting a discussion at the Reliable sources/Noticeboard and then posting links to that discussion here and at the Administrators' noticeboard. If there's strong consensus established, then we can blacklist it. An alternative to consider in these discussions is having it monitored by XLinkBot.
This is a malicious link which leads to a porn site with a malicious script which makes it very difficult to leave or close the page without force quitting the browser. It has only been added twice that I am aware of, here and here (in both cases a reference was removed and replaced by the link), but because of the nature of the link, and because Googling the url shows that it has been spammed all over the Internets today and yesterday it seems like a good idea to blacklist it now. --Bonadea (talk) 08:32, 19 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
These are just some of the link additions that I saw, and there may be more. Whatever the merit of the "Save the World Trade Center" idea this site puts forth, the site repeatedly gets re-added to various Wikipedia pages including Skyscraper, Empire State Building, Brooklyn, and others. The IP changes from time to time, so I think the blacklist is the better way to deal with this. --Aude (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This guy has been POV pushing through spam to self published pieces for a long time. I asked for and received blacklisting on a bunch of blogspot articles and ezine.com last year on Meta [26].
Turns out he's been back with his own domain since March of this year. Sites added to multiple articles by multiple IPs over a fairly long period of time so blocks and protection aren't going to work.
Defer to Global blacklist: Since this person has a history of extensive cross-wiki spamming, please take it to Meta in case he spams other projects with this domain.
I don't think the original articles were crosswiki spammed and this one hasn't been as far as I can tell. It was blocked on Meta because we didn't have the local blacklist back then. But I'm happy to put the request there if you'd prefer. -- SiobhanHansa17:01, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I thought I recognized that name so I went through my old cross-wiki edits and found this ezinearticles spam cleanup edit I made:[27]
As I recall, there was a lot more of this out there.
Now blacklisted on Meta along with 15 other Ben-Ariel domains.[28] Thanks for catching this. I'm sure he'll be back with more domains in the future, but this should slow him down for now. --A. B.(talk • contribs)20:50, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Some pretty random personal blog, but a static (update: not sure if it is static, as it is assigned by an ISP, but it doesn't seem to have been assigned to anyone except the person behind 528hazelwood Protonk (talk) 18:49, 31 October 2008 (UTC)) IP keeps inserting this exact diff each time. If they did it more frequently I'd just block the IP, but this works too. Protonk (talk) 15:07, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Added by a number of IPs to a bunch of dog breed articles with misleading edit summaries ("fixed citation", "broken link", etc). Exactly one link added per IP in the 72.184.0.0/16 range, which makes me incredibly suspicious. Even more suspicious is that all the articles they've been added to, so far, start with 'A'... Zetawoof(ζ)04:55, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've since removed the link from the pages it was added to. Affected pages and the users adding the links included:
There appears to be a lot more to this including previous accounts, hate sites and a number of other domains. I've been looking at this, but it may be Monday before I can wrap this up. --A. B.(talk • contribs)22:42, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This commercial site has been added to multiple HIV/AIDS-related articles by the single-purpose account (and now banned) User:Plwha and sockpuppets, including
Sufficient warnings have been made, but the editor appears to IP-hop to avoid the possibility of blocks. The webpage itself contains a small amount of partly inaccurate travel advice for HIV-positive travelers and nothing of relevance for any of the articles to which it is repeatedly added.
An anonymous user has been restoring this link on Mehndi for quite a long time now, from lots of IPs. Warnings and explanations haven't made a dent, and last time the article was semi protected he just waited it out, so now I think we need to take this step. Partial lists of IPs below.
I am requesting that this be removed. This is required to add a verifiable 3rd party reference to an article (which I would mention, but I can't because the spam filter even blocks on this page). It's not clear why this is on the list in the first place, as it seems to be a straightforward news site. Mdwh (talk) 01:38, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I have been contributing to the Green Tea Page since its inception - recently I moved one of my citations that had existed for years on the Green Tea page from the second instance of the discussion of Green Tea history in China to the first instance (the grammatically the more correct thing to do). The reaction from Ohnoitsjamie (an editor I've had issues with before showing a particular bias) was to remove 1) ALL my references immediately, 2) ban my IP for protesting, 3)indicate he would not discuss the issue further (despite Wikipedia's rules on trying to arbitrate the issue) 3) blacklist my site when I tried to get around his jihad against it because of his insistance not to discuss the issue further. Efforts I made to reinstate the reference were because of his insistence not to discuss the issue futher and my inability to get anyone else to respond to my concerns -- however, they only seemed to give him more justification to define my site as "rogue" to get around his unfair bannings and citation removal in the first place. If ohnoitsjamie had in issue with my moving my original citation the appropriate thing to do would have been to move it back. Instead my contention i he displayed a particular bias and heavyhandedness towards my citation versus others on the same page by removing (rather than moving back) *ALL* citations because I questioned his authority and pointed out his bias. Please see the greentealovers.com discussion and his responses at the bottom of the ohnoitsjamie talk page. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Ohnoitsjamie. I feel he is unfairly targetting my site. My simple request is that the greentealovers.com site be unbanned from the local blacklist and references I had on the green tea page prior to October 07, 2008 be reinstated. If he wishes to keep the citation in the same place (at the point that Chinese History referenced the second time in the page), although its grammatically incorrect, I am willing to compromise on that. What is the wikipedia policy for editors who demonstrate this type of bias and treat some contributors differently than others??? I've never had such an issue like that with any wikipedia editor before in all my years of contributions. Any issues have always been reasonably resolved in a mutually collaborative way.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:12, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The site in question (1) is owned by you, (2) is clearly commercial (selling tea and other products and (3) has been added by the Jpeizer account as well as a few anon IPs and a single purpose account. I suspect a checkuser would find a relation between Jpeizer and the single purpose account (as well as the IPs in question). As such, the link belongs on the blacklist. OhNoitsJamieTalk17:34, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am formally requesting a third unbiased party and not Ohnoitsjamie review this as I do not consider Ohnoitsjamie an objective party. He is the only editor I have ever had an issue with is all my years as a wikipedia contributor. The reference in question had been there for years and its clear other references on that page also sell tea. Please review my site (216.131.68.51/greenteahealth.htm) it is rich in green tea medical, preparation, and history information and as such has been a contributor for wikipedia for years. The appropriate thing for you to have done if you had an issue was to simply replace the citation in its original position. Instead Ohnoitsjamie chose to remove ONLY my references (all of them) while seemingly ignoring the other sites which also sold tea on the page. Any sockpuppets etc. were the result of your unfair bias towards my account, and designed to circumvent your banning it while as at the same time indicating your unwillingness to discuss the issue further in violation of wikipedia arbitration rules. You're only now commenting it seems because eI have put in a formal request to unban. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 17:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Again I request an unbiased third party editor and not Ohnoitsjamie (the editor that is at the source of my concern) review this issue. Ohnoitsjamie is correct in that I have contributed to the green and white tea pages over years and have cited greentealovers.com, the site providing those contributions. I also concur with his sockpuppet inference. Having been blocked inappropriately and told the issue would not be discussed further I did take the issue into my own hands when there was no feedback to address my concerns with this editor. There are few other options when he can cut off conversation and ban and blacklist at will. Ohnoitsjamie seemingly has an issue only with greentealovers.com because I question some of his judgements. I think he is biased because he deals differently with my information site, which also happens to sell teas demonstrating health benefits while having no issue with vendors like Stash Tea and blogs with tea advertising wrapped around their information also being listed on the same wikipedia GREEN TEA page. Although this request is to unblock greentealovers I seriously question *HOW* he dealt with my recent citation edit -- by removing all citations and also indicating he would not discuss the issue further. Any blocking and subsequent banning stems from the original bias I am questioning. Please note editor Ohnoitsjamie is still making no attempt to discuss the issue directly with me to come to a compromise as I have offered. Rather he prefers to continue to justify his bias. Jpeizer (talk • contribs)
That is PRECISELY why I am requesting a third part review of my information site (216.131.68.51/greenteahealth.htm) and of this issue. Ohnoitsjamie continues on a witchhunt for the greentealovers.com information site that has been contributing to the GREEN TEA pages for years with citations while completely ignoring the blatant citations of major commercial tea companies on the green tea page. Ohnoitsjamie seemingly ignores the comments I just noted another editor made to my original complaint related to just that issue filed a complaint about it—Preceding unsigned comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Greentealovers is not a reliable source that is acceptable under Wikipedia's verifiability policy. I removed some other links from the page, and tagged others as not complying with Wikipedia policies for referencing. Editors of the article should strive to only use reliable sources, and where the article talks about medical effects of green tea, we have guidelines that explain what is expected for medicine-related articles. --Aude (talk) 19:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Aude - first, thanks for looking at this as an objective third party. I have put in this formal request to have greentealovers.com unblocked. In my defense I'd like you to note the followingL My site cites reputable peer reviewed journals for ALL its aggregated health information. Please see: 216.131.68.51/greenteahealthcancer.htm. Similarly it gets its processing and preparation information directly from the largest producer of green tea in Japan which it also cites appropriately on the bottom of every page (Some images and information are courtesy of ITO EN, Inc.). The question I have is why was my contributions and citations were good enough for Wikipedia for years especially in its early days when it need non-tech information, but now it isn't. Why was my reference to Tea History in China removed now (after YEARS) by OhnoitsJamie simply because it was moved -- not added. Most importantly, why did editor Ohnoitsjamie, after repeatedly being referred to the bias even by two other editors -- not act upon it? I seriously have to question the actions he took in this case and wonder if others have been also treated in an unbalanced way. This bias alone warrants unblocking consideration. I notice on his info page he talks about the numnber of times his pages have been hacked/abused. I have to wonder if it has something to do with the unbalanced way this editor treats contributors? Also in light of your green tea page edits are references citations [3] and [8] really still appropraite by the standards you are using to qualify these references? comment added by Jpeizer (talk • contribs) 18:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is okay and encouraged to directly cite reputable peer review journals in Wikipedia articles, but self-published sites like yours don't fit within what we expect of reliable sources. Standards for references have been rising on Wikipedia, and becoming more stringent. Thus, while the links may have been acceptable (or simply not noticed) before, I don't think they should be included now. Also, realize that Wikipedia is configured to use the nofollow parameter in all external links, so having your site listed on the Wikipedia page will not improve search engine rankings. --Aude (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As for the references I tagged, it would be okay to remove them, but ideally they should be replaced with reliable sources. Even a major tea company like Celestial Seasonings isn't a good source, since they are in business of selling tea and probably not giving neutral information. --Aude (talk) 20:04, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Your site is not what we consider a reliable source. Even if it was, you could not cite it due to conflict of interest concerns. Jamie is just doing his job. If someone persists in violating our external link and conflict of interest guidelines, then they can eventually expect their domain to get blacklisted.
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
I'm no longer requesting that the greentealovers reference be cited on the green tea page because the objective editors (Other than OhnoitsJamie) dealt with it in a balanced and fair way by deleting other references of similar context on the green tea page. I contend the argument to maintain the citation was previously valid when similar citations existed there from Tea vendors and OhNoitsJamie did nothing to remove them despite another editor stating a case for equity as well.
HOWEVER* I am still requesting greentealovers.com be unblacklisted because of the events around its original blacklisting. Greentealovers.com was a valid contributor to Wikipedia for years and wikipedia had no issue with the site when it needed that content to justify itself as more than a technical reference. Jaime blacklisted greentealovers.com because I re-referenced it, and I rereferenced it because he:
1) refusing to deal unbiasedly with the other listings like Stash and Celestial tea on the same page.
2) refused to discuss the matter further in violation of Wiki rules on trying to come to a reasonable compromise.
There is a cause and effect here: Since the original blocking of greentealovers.com was done in a biased manner -- it should be unblocked. Its enough the citation was removed —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk) 19:26, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are free to delete any other links that you feel violate WP:EL, as I've told you before. There is no violation of wiki rules here; your site was clearly not appropriate, a sentiment echoed by numerous other editors. There's no valid reason to un-blacklist it, as we've already established that it's not a reliable source, and us such is not useful for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamieTalk23:08, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I note 8 warnings or requests to stop adding links followed by a block[48][49][50][51][52][53][54][55][56] That's a breathtaking pattern of self-serving persistence; we normally permanently blacklist domains after about 4 warnings. You've gotten warnings (some of which you erased) and feedback now from multiple editors:
I lack any confidence we can ever count on you to respect our external linking and conflict of interest rules if we remove this domain from our blacklist.
It's unfortunate and disheartening to see this self-moralizing about "self-interests" and "unethical behavior" in this discussion about a particular citation. The facts are that the Greentealovers site was a welcome and valid contributor to the wikipedia green tea page for years until Wikipedia decided to "upgrade" its citation policies -- after it had acheived enough credibility to diss the contributors that allowed it to break out of the perception by many that it was more a site for the technology-minded. Still greentealovers.com had as much validity to provide references to the green tea page as celestial seasoning, Stash Tea and other blog/advertisement references that existed on it -- and that was my argument -- PARITY AND BALANCE --until they were removed. Editors showing bias to one set of citations and not the other was hardly fair and balanced. It's unfortunate that the issue with greentealovers has spilled over into the editors deciding to also censor my addition of valid nonprofit technology references like capaciteria.org or my book about the Dynamics or Technology for Social Change. Capaciteria.org for example is a totally free nonprofit capacity resource index that I maintain for the benefit of the sector. These references were added to WIKIPEDIA over years along with other information on the topic of nonprofit technology and never challanged by wikipedia until the editors wished to make a point about this separate issue on greentealovers.com. If you'd like to throw the baby out with the bathwater and eliminate these other resources contributed to wikipedia in the past, thats fine. But please do keep the editorial self-moralizing about out of the discussion when valid contributions become invalid and unethical depending upon the year and editor deciding upon them. What disturbs me is the hypocracy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.123.34.178 (talk)
An edit-by-edit review of these accounts' histories shows approximately 3 hours spent adding text (about 8 paragraphs worth) in 2005-2008; much of this text was subsequently deleted by 69.123.33.133 after spam warnings. The first 3 warnings appeared in May 2006 (Jpeizer removed them) with more scattered through time. This does not include the time spent on his own article or on his web site. These accounts spent several hours adding considerable text, however much of it was from greentealovers.com and later deleted. Additional time was spent on the two deleted articles about Mr. Peizer and his web site. Much more time was spent arguing over the links, starting in May 2006 on various talk pages where they received no support:
Hello, I am proposing the removal of mysmp from the spam blacklist. This website is a free financial encyclopedia offering traders and finance professionals to develop their trading and financial markets acumen. There are very few websites that have the detailed insight that is presented on mysmp.com. We were originally blacklisted for link spamming. I honestly did not intend to "spam" wikipedia with the content on mysmp and am truly sorry if I had offended anyone in any way. I truly believed that it added value to the community and the owners of each subject actually agreed with me by leaving it on their wiki. mysmp has quite an abundance of great content that we would love to share with the wiki community. Please let me know if I can provide any further information and I would be happy to. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.255.236.89 (talk • contribs)
Gosh, you got those warnings and blocks -- didn't those give you some hint about our view of your link additions? They had all those links to our guidelines, too.
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Long-term problem with spam by numerous editors on multiple articles. Even once warned and blocked and auto-reverted, they persisted, including jumping among IPs and using alternate URLs to evade all less-severe attempts to prevent the spam. DMacks (talk) 17:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I just looked up your domain's history -- that's a lot of spam! And many ignored requests and warnings to stop:
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
I had no problem adding this link last week to the wiki page for Intelius. I added the link to cite my sources stating that this company has been signing up customers to an unauthorized service called 24Protect Plus. My entry was removed and the link was blacklisted. I found numerous other websites that allege the same activity from this company. Complaintsboard.com is a forum where customers can voice their complaints. I have also found several articles that address the integrity issues with this company's business practices. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LuisM111 (talk • contribs) 22:55, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
How is that different from any other complaints site? Such as BBB.org (Better Business Bureau) which is also initially led by a consumer's complaint? Same for Federal Trade Commission(in USA) or the like. In order for a complaint to be had, someone has to file a complaint in their own words.
I was trying to add the following in an objective manner: "As of 2024 on the website ComplaintsBoard.com the MCTV service was listed as having a 98% unresolved complaints rate and presently is ranked as 1 star with that platform." CaribDigita (talk) 09:54, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
SermonAudio.com
I am requesting that the domain sermonaudio.com be considered for removal from the local black list. I tried to update the entry about Giuseppi Logan with a reference to the page (blacklisted domain/sermoninfo.asp?SID=10180811720)that houses a recent interview that proves what is said about him being found by a mission group in New York. The article currently states that it is not know if he is alive. This is a good reference to prove that he is. Evidently someone in the past has abused the use of this site as a resource but I believe this is a valid use. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.155.163.233 (talk) 17:17, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is that final? Is there a way for a blacklisted domain to be used in case like this. The article says that the guy may be dead! This is proof that he is not.72.155.163.233 (talk) 13:12, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I propose to remove this website from the black list as it is a highly educative and informative resource on the aluminium production. It was added only to articles which can profit from the website as their subject is explained there in more details or users can find daily news about them - aluminium, alumina and bauxite (bauxite is first processed into alumina and then into aluminium and after that foil or alloys or parts of things (plains, cars, furniture etc) are made from aluminium ingots as a final product). The website contains extensive information on the history of aluminium, aluminium production and ways of using aluminium - in design, transport, construction.LOscritor 16:10, 27 October 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.20.6 (talk)
In other words, when you spammed it you only spammed it to places you thought it might stick. But it's not blacklisted, this is simply a case of reversion by someone who did not think the links met WP:EL (and I agree). Guy (Help!) 07:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Due to one mistakes which was done on 30th Oct.. this URL series is blocked.. This website comprises fantastic Hindi article over music.. u people can see this website one more time.. it may be possible that owner of this website would not gone through terms and conditions properly, you should a more chance . thanks
I use this redirect service for my website because my hosting changes periodically, so it gives me a more or less stable place to link to. It has some electronics schematics and detailed descriptions of their operation that are useful to those who want to learn about electronics. The Lightning Stalker (talk) 09:31, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Declined There is no practical chance of a redirect site being removed form the blacklist, and in any case they are on the meta blacklist not enWP. I'd suggest you asked for whitelisting of the individual link but Wikipedia:Attribution#Citing_yourself shows why even that would be a bad idea in this case. Guy (Help!) 20:27, 9 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It was blocked on meta: from a request here in 2006. I've requested a global unblock, but I'm going to unblock it locally, here. A meta admin speculates that it was blocked because it redirects. — Arthur Rubin(talk)20:09, 13 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting. I can save the full http:// sss.sexhealthguru.com in my own user space [62] but not on this page. But I can't save http:// www.sexhealthguru.com in either. Is this worthy of a bug report? -- SiobhanHansa20:17, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Resolved
