Wikipedia talk:Spam blacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Discussion on proposal

  • I'm don't see any problems with adopting this proposed procedure as written. Though I say this without prejudice to modifying it if necessary in the future. - BanyanTree 06:34, 11 July 2007 (UTC)
    I agree. Andre (talk) 06:49, 13 July 2007 (UTC)
    I also agree. -- zzuuzz (talk) 16:47, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
    Agreed --Hu12 17:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)
  • How do I find the reason for a particular site being blacklisted? It is not easy to request removal of the ban if you don't know why it is there. It looks like this procedure is being used to censor material that can easily be found by Google images who incidentally don't blacklist sites. Dbdb (talk) 14:20, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyright violations

Here's another time to blacklist at meta: links to blatant copyright violations. For example, when the domains associated with this discussion all finally get identified, they should probably be blacklisted on meta even if we only find their links only on this wikipedia. That's because these sites are all blatant violations of different magazines' copyrights; Wikimedia can't afford to have links to these sites if we can help it. (See the discussion of "contributory infringement" at Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works and Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry). --A. B. (talk) 23:38, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The spam filter as a barrier to reporting copyvios

Suggestion: shouldn't the use of <nowiki> tags as a temporary way of bypassing the spamfilter, for when a wiki page is a copyvio of a blacklisted page and the URL needs to be included in the db-copyvio tenplate, be documented on the project page? See discussion here. -- simxp (talk) 22:26, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] help!

the spam filter seems to have put me in the awkward bind of not being able to undo one of my edits.

Here's the undo attempt in question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Isonomia&action=edit&undoafter=150944385&undo=174750435

Whenever I try to undo my edit the spam filter blocks me. This started when I was trying to place a comment on an editors talk page and each time I tried to save my comment (which did not contain any URL) the spam filter would block the page save. I used firefox find to locate the url it was complaining about and tried to remove part of it to make sure that my post wasn't somehow at fault. This worked but when I tried to undo the change (since the URL was someone else's earlier contribution on the page) it wouldn't let me undo the change. Does it really make sense to freeze all changes to a discussion page until someone removes a blocked URL? What are we supposed to do? wait for the original editor to remove the link? stop using the discussion page? go altering other peoples edits?Zebulin (talk) 03:21, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Whats going on?

i have now tried three times to add the following comment to User talk:Baylink

  • ==re [[Perry Cox]] comment== Don't worry about it, it was my mistake, i copy and pasted the link from the talk page, but accidentally picked the wrong one. Happy editing--~~~~

and each time, it gave me the spam blacklist message. Why is it doing this?, there's no link in the passage. Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 14:43, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It was tinyurl.com tripping the BL filter. I delinked it on his talk page, you should be able to leave your message now.--Hu12 (talk) 18:59, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks--Jac16888 (talk) 21:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
Ye what the hell is that?! I can't communicate other users any more!! D@rk talk 00:39, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Problem

I'm trying to warn a user for vandalism, and my edit is only {{subst:uw-v3|beer pong}}, yet it's saying a triggered the spam filter with "spam(dot)jobklub(dot)com". What's going on? --AW (talk) 16:28, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

I figured it out, the link was elsewhere on the page --AW (talk) 16:36, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] False positive blacklisted link

Umm, I don't know if this is the right place to ask, but for several times when I was trying to edit on Talk:Standard Mandarin, I was prevented from doing so by a notice that says the www . chinese-tool . com was blocked. But I didn't add that link, and when I checked the blacklist it wasn't there either. I don't know what happened nor what I should do. Can somebody help me out? Keith Galveston (talk) 05:50, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] What is going on??

This is what I am trying to post: "I dont want to drag a great article into a revert war, so I'm bringing it up here. To me, "Rest of the world" seems very off hand-ish. Almost as though the "rest of the world" doesnt matter. Whereas "Other parts of the world" seems as though they are being included and not in an afterthought kind of a way. It could just be me, but since it was reverted, someone else thinks otherwise. Comments? (on a side note, this post was blocked twice due to a spam filter... that I was adding some odd link... I'm not, and this was a direct paste of the last time I tried to add this) Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)" nothing about any link involved. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:28, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Fixed it... although the filter shouldnt activate if the link isnt in the post that you personally are trying to insert. Thats just my two cents. Queerbubbles | Leave me Some Love 17:35, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Post Chronicle

Can someone explain why http://www.postchronicle.com/ is black listed? They seemed to have been OK last week. -- Kendrick7talk 08:50, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] SS Free

I noticed that the world's most popular community had its url blocked, I don't want a bunch of our members spamming the board with our url, I for one work for SS Free, Inc. and on behalf of the company, am here to look into the problem and fix the problem so the SS Free's article won't have to have SSFREE-DOT-NET-TC not clickable, people could get confused that way, please remove it from the black list. Also why are all 879345 of the SS Free's affiliates blocked, including some major video game companies that we do business with?--4.244.36.149 (talk) 01:28, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Why is a spam blacklist being used to blacklist non-spam websites?

It seems to me that it's common to use criteria completely unrelated to spamming as justification for blacklisting. For the most part, lack of qualification for V/RS is used as a justification. If that were a valid justification, why not simply ban all links that violate them?

Among other websites, such a ban would include: wikipedia, myspace, livejournal, blogger/blogspot, slashdot, boing boing, gnu.org, etc... Many of these websites have self-publishers paid based on page views, and almost all of them involve the people who run the website getting paid.

WP:EL explicitly allows for external links when a web page provides useful information, regardless of whether or not it qualifies under WP:RS. For example, websites like Associated Content, with self-published content, are blacklisted. However, there's no particular reason why a specific article couldn't offer helpful information as an external link. This is true of any self-published website with a large amount of information.

Heck, you can't even put the links on a talk page, regardless of how helpful they are to the discussion.

-Nathan J. Yoder (talk) 10:06, 11 June 2008 (UTC)