User talk:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js/Archives/2013/September

{{notice

This appears to be a valid link, kind of[edit]

Please see this diff where the url http://www.limoges.com/articles.asp?id=140 is flagged. Most certainly this is a shopping site, yet some of the information on it appears valuable. WHat one doe sin this circumstance I am not sure, so I will leave it to others to decide. Fiddle Faddle 09:34, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have added it to the exceptions list because that page doesn't look like it's advertising. It'll take some time before the bot will act on it though as it processes tremendous amounts of data every run. The bot should remove the tag on it's own once it sees it.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:14, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks. Please also see Foreskin_restoration where the NORM site does not seem to me to be spam. I suspect it has, instead, irked someone. This area is divided into camps with entrenched positions about foreskins. URLS seem to be:

http://www.norm.org
http://www.norm.org/history.html
http://www.norm.org/regimen.html Fiddle Faddle 15:32, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to request a removal from the blacklist for those. Since it involves more than one link.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 15:44, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. The process is somewhat arcane, but I think I have achieved it. Fiddle Faddle 17:05, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If it doesn't get whitelisted, let me know, and I will add it to the ignore list.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:06, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Cable car guy blacklisted?[edit]

Why?:https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Cable_car_%28railway%29&oldid=574326829 Sammy D III (talk) 15:53, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't control the blacklist. So I can't answer that. The most common reason for why is because it was used to spam a lot with.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 16:01, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be a recurring issue. I recommend filing a request to remove it from the blacklist here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:07, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.chanelreplica.com[edit]

Hi - I have closely examined this site recently flagged as on the blacklist for Chanel and it seems to be legit - ChanelReplica.com is used by the Chanel company to give advice and warning about counterfeit goods, and the links from that page go to examples of sites where Chanel's lawsuits successfully shut down their operations and the Chanel company was granted ownership of those domains (such as [1]). Although it DOES look at first glance like mega-spam, it's not at all. Mabalu (talk) 16:17, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Added exception—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:10, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Mabalu (talk) 21:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, it is still automatically tagging the other instance of what seems to be the exact same link as spam. Please can you sort this? Mabalu (talk) 09:31, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It takes some time before the exception goes into effect.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm confused because if you look at the edit history here, the bot removed ONE of the two tags for the same URL it added, so I went in and removed the other one and the bot came straight back and re-added it. What's going on there? Mabalu (talk) 13:12, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The bot maintains the template. If there are two of them, it will remove one.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:52, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.historyandpolicy.org[edit]

The reference www.historyandpolicy.org/papers/policy-paper-70.html was just blacklisted on Supermarket. The site appears to be a perfectly legitimate academic research site, and the linked-to policy paper a useful reference. Choor monster (talk) 16:35, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't look like this site should be considered spam. You should file a request for removal from the blacklist here.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:13, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

OK, thanks. I did so on the talk page. Choor monster (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. I directed you to the wrong page. Sorry. I moved your post accordingly.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:47, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! MediaWiki did some a bit too high-level for blacklisting decisions. I was about to ask. (Also, you link to MW above for someone else's request.) Choor monster (talk) 17:51, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I forgot that MW meant the actual site and not a shortcut to the namespace. :p—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 17:59, 24 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

HollywoodNorthReport[edit]

The following link - http://hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=1323 - is being blacklisted, for whatever reason. The actual page (which has since been removed, but can be seen in this - http://web.archive.org/web/20101216033234/http://hollywoodnorthreport.com/article.php?Article=1323 - archive link) contains an interview with an actor that is being used on a featured article page. It would be nice if this specific link could be except so that the archive page can be added to verify the interview.

I am unable to unblock links. I can only choose what links the bot should ignore. Sorry.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

AlphaWindows links[edit]

I see the links have bit-rotted, but they're on the Internet archive - I'll replace those with archiveurl's and see if the result is acceptable

I'm not sure what you are referring to, but if you are trying to link to archive.org, I think that has been blacklisted as well.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 00:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Archive.org has been blacklisted?! Why? Has something happened recently that makes it no longer reliable? I thought it was a standard resource for archiving/recording deleted or defunct webpages. Mabalu (talk) 09:34, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know for certian, I only heard that because someone was spamming the archive.org links.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:58, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Might the current rash of problem reports be not your (bot's) issue at all?[edit]

It appears to me that something has changed. I doubt it was you or your bot. I suspect, instead, that something may have changed with the blacklist itself, either by policy or unknown to those who administer it.

Why am I alerting you to my suspicions?

Because I haven't a clue about this area, but you do. And I see you as the best placed person to figure out whom to talk to and what to say and how to deal with investigating what has really happened. I doubt, you see, that you would have gone off on a frolic of your own and changed things, the more so since the reactions to it are already deluging you and adding to your self imposed workload.

Since the issue seems to be wholly spam exception specific, (though I suspect a different issue) I am placing this note here rater than on your own talk page. But please feel free to move it to that page and discuss from there if you feel it appropriate, or, indeed, if it needs an answer. Fiddle Faddle 09:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I'm clueless. Can you be more specific?—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 11:59, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I am fairly clueless, too. What it 'feels' may have happened is that the blacklist somehow increased to contain several (many?) urls that were not previously blacklisted and probably ought not to be blacklisted. Norm.org is one. Your bot gets 'blamed' because it is the public face of the blacklist. I may be wrong. But I would hate you to take flak for things that are just plain not your flak to take. Fiddle Faddle 17:45, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I went into the BRFA and this task knowing exactly what was going to happen. Not many people understand the technicality behind this. This task was welcomed with open arms and when it was discovered that the blacklist contains a lot of entries that are causing these so called false positives, OH NOes started breaking out. The bot draws and handles the blacklist data exactly as Wikipedia does. The code is identical as a matter of fact, to ensure consistency. Not many people understand that because a blacklisted link can be added to the page that got tagged, doesn't mean it can get tagged elsewhere. My bot is simply stirring up the dust during its initial round. The dust will eventually settle again.—cyberpower ^Chat_Online 19:38, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

bet-at-home.com[edit]

Hi Cyberpower, Your bot found a blacklisted link in the following article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bet-at-home.com and marked this. I tried to remove this link from the global blacklist 2011/12 (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-07#bet-at-home.com). But it was not possible. Only a temporary global unblocking to put the url in the article was possible. Therefore I would like to ask you if it is possible that this link will be ignored by the bot. Thank you! --Bah2011 (talk) 09:51, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Done. It'll take some time before it goes into effect though.—cyberpower ^Chat_{Limited Access} 12:03, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

(been involved in these requests): I would suggest to re-request this in a proper way .. or get it whitelisted on the local wikis where it is used. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:53, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.staysure.co.uk[edit]

Hello,

Please allow www.staysure.co.uk for use in the abbreviated company list on Sunday Times Fast Track 100.

(I'm asking here rather than MediaWiki Talk:Spam-whitelist because the article links to the front page of the website. As I understand MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist, it can't whitelist a link for a single page, whereas this page can. Whitelisting a front page for every article would completely circumvent the blacklist.)

Thank you. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 20:57, 25 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelisting here only tells the bot to ignore. It doesn't actually unblock the link. That'll need to be done at the whitelist.—cyberpower ^Chat_Offline 13:30, 27 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Per the spam-whitelist header, "Requests quoting only a domain ... will be denied". Since it's the site's front page to which the article links I can't give any more than the domain, so whitelisting isn't possible. The blacklist rule that is triggering this is "\bstay[\w-]*\.co\.uk\b". I think this is rather broad, so I've asked for this to be amended at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. – PartTimeGnome (talk | contribs) 17:25, 28 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]