MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Mediawiki:Spam-blacklist is meant to be used by the spam blacklist extension. Unlike the meta spam blacklist, this blacklist affects pages on the English Wikipedia only. Any administrator may edit the spam blacklist. See Wikipedia:Spam blacklist for more information about the spam blacklist.

Instructions for editors

There are 4 sections for posting comments below. Please make comments in the appropriate section. These links take you to the appropriate section:

  1. Proposed additions
  2. Proposed removals
  3. Troubleshooting and problems
  4. Discussion

Each section has a message box with instructions. In addition, please sign your posts with ~~~~ after your comment.

Completed requests are archived. All additions and removals are also logged.

Instructions for admins

Any admin unfamiliar with this page should probably read this first, thanks.
If in doubt, please leave a request and a spam-knowledgeable admin will follow-up.

  1. Does the site have any validity to the project?
  2. Have links been placed after warnings/blocks? Have other methods of control been exhausted? Would referring this to our anti-spam bot, XLinkBot be a more appropriate step? Is there a WikiProject Spam report? If so, a permanent link would be helpful.
  3. Please ensure all links have been removed from articles and discussion pages before blacklisting. (They do not have to be removed from user or user talk pages).
  4. Make the entry at the bottom of the list (before the last line). Please do not do this unless you are familiar with regex — the disruption that can be caused is substantial.
  5. Close the request entry on here using either {{done}} or {{not done}} as appropriate. The request should be left open for a week maybe as there will often be further related sites or an appeal in that time.
  6. Log the entry. Warning: if you do not log any entry you make on the blacklist, it may well be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found. To log the entry, you will need this number - 893961320 after you have closed the request. See here for more info on logging.
snippet for logging: {{/request|893961320#section_name}}
snippet for logging of WikiProject Spam items: {{WPSPAM|893961320#section_name}}

Proposed additions[edit]


Seems to be an attack website. --Moxy (talk) 23:04, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

@Moxy: This is the website of Femina (India). Also subject of a current discussion Here on RSN. --Dirk Beetstra T C 01:19, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
Oppose. The archived noticeboard discussion at "Use of blogs for sourcing height in BLPs" indicates that Femina is a usable source. The domains don't appear to be compromised by attackers, or attacking other subjects. Perhaps this filing was a mistake? — Newslinger talk 09:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Non-RS blog/news aggregator persistently being added to William Ruto as a source of content suggesting misdeeds on the part of the subject. See for confirmation that it is a personal blog (on steroids).General Ization Talk 18:32, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
@General Ization: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:04, 8 April 2019 (UTC)
The issue was as a result of a shared computer that initiated the persistent changes, that has been resolved and won't happen again. The site has information that is very useful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talkcontribs) 05:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:52, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Just noting that (talk · contribs) deleted this section. - MrOllie (talk) 19:07, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
plus Added OhNoitsJamie Talk 03:45, 19 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

See User:Mdtanvir99, where Mdtanvir99 added promotional spam to their userpage for the site in question. The userpage has been marked for G11. See diffs on their userpage first diff (with 104 links to the site) and second diff (they removed and replaced with just one link). Dreamy Jazz 🎷 talk to me | my contributions 17:32, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals[edit][edit]

At Aloeae, the journal article at [] appears in a blacklisted notice. I've never encountered this before, but this is a respectable journal whose back numbers are online at []. I can see no reason for it to be blacklisted. Peter coxhead (talk) 14:34, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's not the "alsterworthia" part of the domain name that's triggering it, but rather the "files" part. I'm assuming there was some abuse involving directly linking to file resources from within Wordpress domains (maybe to circumvent blacklisting of the main domain). In any case, it's probably easier to defer to the whitelist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)
@Peter coxhead and Ohnoitsjamie: As you were able to link to it, clearly not blacklisted. Likely something else there that was a problem. If it is just a notice, just remove it. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
@Beetstra: ok, have done. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:10, 12 April 2019 (UTC) (Removal)[edit]

This website was blacklisted. The issued was as a result of a shared computer that initiated the persistent changes. It seems like an attack on the site. The site has information that is very useful.

Oppose While the site may have "information that is useful", it is (and advertises itself) as a personal blog (built in WordPress) under the control of one individual (Victor Mochere). As such, it is not a reliable source for any content in Wikipedia. See User generated content. Links to the site were being used by multiple IPs in multiple articles to make otherwise unverified and potentially defamatory claims concerning a number of African political figures. Hence the lack of reliability of this source is not trivial. Presumably if someone sees something on this site they think should be discussed in Wikipedia they can find the information on the Web site of a reliable source and use that source here, rather than a personal blog. General Ization Talk 17:56, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
First, I don't see where the site advertises itself as a personal blog and the secondly, the link that was being re-added was not to "a number of African political figures" but one political figure. The link did not contain a "defamatory claims" but a list of properties owned by the individual. I think more should be done on curbing site attacks by IPs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talkcontribs) 18:24, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Apparently the site has been rebuilt in just the past few days. However, due to the wonders of the Wayback Machine, we can see what I saw on 8 April here. "This is my personal blog where I offer my own musing on topics periodically.I do not restrict myself on topics that I write on." That's pretty definitive, don't you agree? Secondly, please review the following diffs: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. I won't argue about the whether the content at all of these links was accurate and/or defamatory, frankly because I don't have time to read through all of the content at the links or their archives. However, links to the site were clearly not all on a single topic, nor all placed by the same IP, nor all placed within the same week. I think we can agree that the phrase "[Ruto's] fortune can be attributed to a tyranny of companies he owns and major stakes he has in some of the best grossing companies in Kenya. Though some are of the opinion that he has used uncouth means to acquire his vast wealth." is potentially defamatory. And, most importantly, the very nature of the site does not meet the requirements for reliable sourcing here. General Ization Talk 19:02, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
The blog might have been a personal blog before, which later become an informational blog. The nature of content it has is not of personal opinion despite using a name of a person, just like 'Perez Hilton'. And what can't be disputed is that the information can be verified from media/research/news outlets and often references to the sources have been used. Such information can be material and of use, now and in the future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talkcontribs) 19:27, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I think we have both fully stated our cases; at this point, it is up to the admins who manage the blacklist. However, and with all due respect, do you have any relationship with the Web site and/or its producer(s)? It does seem peculiar that you appeared, seemingly out of nowhere, to challenge the listing of the site, having made no other edits using this account. General Ization Talk 19:36, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
I have no relationship whatsoever with the site or its owners. I don't know if the IPs used were blocked or not, but there's a loophole being used to site attack websites. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talkcontribs) 20:00, 12 April 2019 (UTC)
Yet the only edits you have made have been to try to get this website off the blacklist. Usually, an editor who isn't involved with the website directly doesn't come here with a one-track mind to try to reverse the blacklisting the moment it happens. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 03:17, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
The Authors subpage was informative about the nature of this site. Retain on blacklist. Ravensfire (talk) 03:28, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
I own a cyber cafe, and I have seen this guy who comes and engages in some sort of vandalism on pages using different stations. I got concerned because I have benefited from the site before when I was stuck and thought this was unfair. Regardless, if the blacklist is lifted or not, it doesn't matter to or benefit me. But, I think people can easily use loopholes on Wikipedia to try and attack or block out sites or people. And that is very wrong. You should work out on mechanisms to prevent that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevinwanzira (talkcontribs) 05:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Given that multiple IPs - which generally means multiple physical locations, at the least - were involved in this, as was indicated above, and your full-throated efforts to defend the site - which would pretty much never be usable on Wikipedia save for (maybe) an article about the blog's author (for which we have a whitelist) - I'm afraid none of that statement really washes what-so-ever. I'm not buying the "cyber cafe owner" claim, since if that's the case, why go to such great lengths to try to unblacklist a website that has no impact on your business other than a regular uses it to spam Wikipedia, which would in turn lead to the cybercafe's IP being blocked?
And that's the whole thing here. The explanations you give would require absurd logical leaps and bounds, and for that I see your claims of "loopholes" and such to be little more than a diversion. If it is as you say, that you are a cyber cafe owner, than you gain absolutely nothing from trying to get a website that has been spammed un-blacklisted almost immediately after the blacklisting, since the alternative to blacklisting is to block all IPs involved (which by your own admission includes your cafe's), and this entire exchange - which, mind you, is publicly viewabale (even if this page is NOINDEXed) - shows that you're perfectly happy to allow someone to spam Wikipedia from your cafe, and a page that's essentially an attack ad, no less. So forgive me for being blunt, but you're quite blatantly lying to us. What is your actual connection to the website?A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 06:32, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Also – assuming that anecdote is true – do your customers know that you, as the owner of the cyber cafe they are patronizing, are looking over their shoulders? That's a good way to find yourself out of the cyber cafe business. General Ization Talk 01:31, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
Not done No evidence that the site has any value for Wikipedia at this time. Pretty obvious WP:COI in removal request. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:35, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@Kevinwanzira:  Declined, as I explained here: it does not matter how the links were added, our only concern here is to stop unwanted additions of links. Removals are only entertained if there is value to Wikipedia in having the links beyond a level that can be handled by occasional whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:24, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

This entry was swept into the blacklist in March 2017, purportedly as part of a list of websites that sell legal services related to immigration. However, this website belongs to a registered not-for-profit advocacy organization that has worked on introducing bills[1] and has intervened in litigation related to immigrants' rights[2][3]. Research published on this website has been cited by many others including the U.S. Congress[4] and the director of a U.S. Government agency[5], presenting a strong case that the content on this website would be useful to link to on Wikipedia.

This website does not sell legal services. Because of the nature of this website and the non-profit organization that runs it, lumping it with the other entries was inappropriate (any perceived superficial similarities notwithstanding). A blacklist addition proposal for this website alone would not be strong enough to withstand scrutiny, because of the historically low level of spam relative to other entries on that list, and because the stated reasons for the other entries (selling legal services, SEO, and all valid content being available elsewhere) do not apply here.

For the aforementioned reasons, this website should be removed from the English Wikipedia blacklist.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs)


Opposed was black listed because it's self-generated Wiki style Pages were being placed everywhere.....// immigrant voice wiki . --Moxy 🍁 14:31, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
If your concern is about wiki pages hosted there (WP:ELNO), then I would propose resolving this by changing the blacklist entry to and not the entire domain. I noticed the blacklist does contain several entries that are similarly limited to subdirectories that contain user-generated content (not the entire domain), so there is plenty of precedent for this kind of resolution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 17:51, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
@  Declined. Declared paid editing ring spamming a lot of these. No real foreseeable use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:38, 13 April 2019 (UTC)
Other than links to that website's front page (WP:ELOFFICIAL), all past links were pointing to a wiki hosted on that website, and a majority of them were to one specific page on that wiki. When a fellow contributor specifically pointed this out, I proposed an alternate resolution in good faith to only blacklist the wiki subdirectory, rather than the entire domain.
I couldn't help but notice you said "a lot of these", without responding to any of my reasoning on why this website (which belongs to a registered not-for-profit organization advocating for immigrants' rights in the United States) should not have been lumped in a category of other websites that are run for profit. When explaining my reasoning, I took care to cite sources listed as reliable on WP:RSP, as well as public-domain research undertaken by a non-partisan U.S. Government agency which specifically links to pages on this domain, in order to show that this website has useful content. Seeing as reliable sources consider the content on this website (outside its wiki) useful, you should explain your reasons as to why you still believe that all content on this website would have "no real use" on Wikipedia. Your reasoning should stand on its own for this website, and not based on superficial similarities with any other domains (and must be consistent with WP:WORLDVIEW).
My proposed alternate resolution of only blacklisting the wiki subdirectory on this domain (and not the entire domain) meets the guidelines for blacklist removals, does it not? It can be useful on Wikipedia because reliable sources have found the content useful; and future spam/abuse will not occur because the data shows that past spamming was limited to the wiki subdirectory (which would still be blacklisted). Where is the point of disagreement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 00:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)
@ I know that your reasoning was like that, but my point of 'a lot of these' was that they were all immigration related sites. The editing ring was also adding material that was not immigration related. To expand: these were declared paid editors, which means that someone was paying them to create wikipedia pages for a specific goal. This is one of the websites that we saw them adding. Do you have any reason to believe that this was just collateral damage, or whether people with an interest in this site actually paid these editors to make sure this was linked? This has nothing to do with the point that some material on the external site may be 'bad', this has only to do with who added this site and under which premises they were adding this site. To me, there is a significant chance that these editors were also paid to add this specific site.
I still need to see whether this will get some real use, and for now a couple of whitelist requests should suffice (for that: Defer to Whitelist). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:11, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

At Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#RfC: The Points Guy, although there is a consensus that content involving credit cards from this website should be avoided, there is a general consensus that other content from this site should not be regarded as generally unusable. Considering that the website was added to the spam blacklist after WP:SILENCE, this should not remain on the blacklist. feminist (talk) 12:17, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: The wording was closer to 'never for credit cards, and avoid if possible for the rest' .. I am tempted to use the Whitelist to gauge how often the latter is actually unavoidable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
The whitelist can be an interim solution, yes, but based on the comments it's clear that at least some parts of the website should not be blacklisted. feminist (talk) 14:31, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: yes, I read the comments by the users, but to repeat the wording of the closer: "Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located.". Note that the site was blacklisted because it performs native advertising, not because (parts of) the site are unreliable. I am not suggesting whitelisting as an interim solution, I am suggesting to use the whitelist requests to see how much of this material is really needed (i.e. which parts can not be avoided since there are no other sources), and leaving the status quo. That is strengthened by the remark that part of the material is 'hell no', and de-listing would also allow that to be used again. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

This an extremely useful website for people researching cuisine of different countries. It should be removed from the blacklist, as it does not have any questionable content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prachigaur (talkcontribs) 05:15, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

@Prachigaur: Advameg advertising sites.  Declined, spammed (note that I found discussions going 12 years back regarding these sites). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:35, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Official site to the UK branch of Manga Entertainment, appears to be a false positive as the US branch's website (Dispute sharing the same name and logo, is owned by a different company) works just fine. Luigitehplumber (talk) 22:14, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

@LTPHarry:  Declined, Defer to Whitelist for specific links on this domain, this was large-scale spammed to Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

5 Months ago, I made a Mistake!! I DONT KNOW HOW TO EDIT Wikipedia PAGES. I clicked edit and I Randomly placed the news articles links in References on Wikipedia Pages.

I'm Extremely Sorry About That and My website is added to Spam list... I Don't Know What to Do... The Links that I added are 'Not Spam links'.. It just News article about upcoming Tamil Movies. My website is added to the spam list because I Just don't know the proper way to add the References. Please Help Me to remove my website from the Spam list.

I will not do this again. Next Time, I will do in Proper Way by adding info/Updates about the Movie and add Reference for the Source. I will Help with what i can by updating Upcoming Tamil movies Pages on Wikipedia.

Please help and Thank You..

Websites are not removed from the blacklist at the site owners' request. —A little blue Bori v^_^v Bori! 19:40, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Please Help Sir.. I don't have any motive of Spamming.. this all happened because i don't know to edit the page... i am Just an average 15 years old kid Sir..

Not done We don't add links to the blacklist because someone "accidentally" added one link to a page. We added it to the blacklist because you spammed the hell out of it all over the place. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:33, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I saved the Same page (Sandakozhi 2 and Adhik Ravichandran) Again and Again with some minor edits.. i am really Sorry about that.. and i will not do this again.. Please Help

Your last account was unblocked on the condition that you would stop trying to add links to your website and make other edits instead. You agreed, saying "yes, i can do that without adding my website." Now you are wasting our time bugging us about your website? This account and your former account will be indefinitely blocked if you waste any more of our time on this topic. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:34, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes, i am saying it agian, I will Edit pages without adding my website Links. What if someone wants to add a news article from wesbite in References for Source ?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayaMari860 (talkcontribs) 06:39, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Now i Know my wesbite is small, I am sure in Future it will grow big in my Niche (Tamil Cinema) and i will make my site become one of leading tamil cinema news portals.. and i dont want my site in wikipedia spam list because of mistake i made..

@JayaMari860: If someone else want to add this site, they will either ask for whitelisting of that one link only, or they will ask for de-listing. That request will be evaluated on the merit of that current request. We are not delisting because of some possible future use, we are not de-listing because of requests made by the spammer in the first place. There is no use in persisting further, this is plainly  Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

OK Sir.. Thanks for Your Time and Sorry for wasting your time... and i m not a spammer.. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayaMari860 (talkcontribs) 07:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Worldwide Business Research[edit]

Looks like the URL was added to blacklist page because a Wikipedia page was created for Worldwide Business Research in 2007 that was too promotional and not informative enough.

Worldwide Business Research (WBR) is a conference company that creates and runs B2B conferences and their brands. It is also referenced as the organizer of one of its brands Etail Conferences.

Trying to have it removed from the blacklist so that a request can be added to have a neutral and fact driven page created for this company. Thank you for your help, and happy to provide any additional information.

ckarayannides 16:32, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Comment It wasn't blacklisted because the page creation was "not informative enough." It was blacklisted because multiple accounts attempted to spam links to it, mostly to (links to the same site). OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:49, 24 April 2019 (UTC)
Comment Ah, I see. Thanks for your comment. Sorry, I had read here that there was an issue with the material. There might be another page with more details.

I never saw the original page, but my assumption is that whoever spammed the page back in 2007 will not spam it if is removed from the blacklist. Let me know if this is appropriate. Thank you! ckarayannides 17:50, 24 April 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]

Logging / COIBot Instructions[edit]

Blacklist logging

Full Instructions for Admins

Quick Reference

For Spam reports or requests originating from this page, use template {{/request|0#section_name}}

  • {{/request|213416274#Section_name}}
  • Insert the oldid 213416274 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
  • Use within the entry log here.

For Spam reports or requests originating from Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam use template {{WPSPAM|0#section_name}}

  • {{WPSPAM|182725895#Section_name}}
  • Insert the oldid 182725895 a hash "#" and the Section_name (Underscoring_spaces_where_applicable):
  • Use within the entry log here.
Note: if you do not log your entries it may be removed if someone appeals and no valid reasons can be found.

Addition to the COIBot reports

The lower list in the COIBot reports now have after each link four numbers between brackets (e.g. " (0, 0, 0, 0)"):

  1. first number, how many links did this user add (is the same after each link)
  2. second number, how many times did this link get added to wikipedia (for as far as the linkwatcher database goes back)
  3. third number, how many times did this user add this link
  4. fourth number, to how many different wikipedia did this user add this link.

If the third number or the fourth number are high with respect to the first or the second, then that means that the user has at least a preference for using that link. Be careful with other statistics from these numbers (e.g. good user who adds a lot of links). If there are more statistics that would be useful, please notify me, and I will have a look if I can get the info out of the database and report it. This data is available in real-time on IRC.

poking COIBot

When adding {{LinkSummary}}, {{UserSummary}} and/or {{IPSummary}} templates to WT:WPSPAM, WT:SBL, WT:SWL and User:COIBot/Poke (the latter for priviliged editors) COIBot will generate linkreports for the domains, and userreports for users and IPs.


Just wondering, why is on the list? I tried to link to a chemical formula there. As well as I know, chemical formulae can be patented, but not copyrighted. Gah4 (talk) 21:16, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

From June 2014 blacklist log: \bmolbase\.com\b # Materialscientist # spamdatabase for selling chemicals OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:51, 9 April 2019 (UTC)
  • @Gah4: I think you misunderstand the general purpose of the spam blacklist. This list is here mainly to avoid additions of links that are being spammed (i.e. where there are editors that are adding these links for promotional purposes where it is difficult or useless to control by other measures). This list is not primarily here for blocking offensive or spammy content - by far most of the material blocked here is because of abuse, we do not go around the web looking for links which are deemed not useful or offensive. Zenodo was (emergency) blacklisted because of one editor adding those links where many were deemed inappropriate, this was likely also added because one or multiple editors were just here to add such links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:04, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
I first found out about this page from zenodo (see above). I wanted a page to link to with a chemical structure, and came up in a web search, and had nice diagrams. If I knew how to make nice chemical diagrams, I might have just done that, but I don't. (I think there is special software to do it.) After zenodo, I thought it was copyright related, and couldn't figure that out. They do give nice structure diagrams, and other properties of each chemical, with a large collection of chemicals on one site. There are links about buying them, but I wasn't interested in that. I don't do a lot of chemical links, but it would be nice to have a good place to link for chemicals. Thanks. Gah4 (talk) 06:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
@Gah4: that is why I clarified: most of the material on this list because it was being pushed onto Wikipedia and this is then the last control measure. Copyright violations are only rarely the main issue. Regarding molbase, there are many, many alternatives, including drawing it (there is a request page for chemical drawings somewhere) and linking to non selling-focused sites. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:53, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
Thanks. I didn't know about a drawing request site. I ended up linking to, which seemed a little strange, as I don't know why they are doing photographic chemistry. I tend not to think about link spamming by others, since it isn't something I think about doing myself. It is sometimes nice to know about how much something costs, though. The ones I was linking were for color developer chemistry, where it is much easier, and usually cheaper, to buy them already mixed. Gah4 (talk) 14:17, 10 April 2019 (UTC)