MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2012/09

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Approved requests[edit]

Goo.gl/maps[edit]

goo.gl: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • goo.gl/maps
Until a few days ago, Google Maps had been using Google's proprietary URL shortener, g.co, which we allow on Wikipedia since only official Google websites can make use of that shortcut. However, in the last few days, Google Maps appears to have reverted to using the older goo.gl/maps. Unfortunately we block goo.gl because that service CAN be used for ANY internet site. However, only Google Maps makes use of goo.gl/maps. To avoid having to make use of links that can spread across 5 or more lines in the edit window yet impart no useful information to a reader or editor, I think it makes perfect sense to whitelist this. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 22:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I recall that you could click something and it would give you the full link. The full link is no problem, that is anyway what technically should be used (per WP:ELNEVER), even if it does not convey information - it is not a problem either. However, we could consider the /maps whitelist (though maybe better would be an adapted blacklisting rule on meta for that to avoid that all Wikis will need to whitelist this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:49, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies, but I'm trying to find what in WP:ELNEVER even brushes on URL shorteners. I remember there was a page somewhere that basically said something along the lines of "links shouldn't surprise readers and for that reason we normally block sites that allow you to shorten any URL."
In this case it is Google Maps specific, which would still be indicated in the short URL, and it simply knocks off all the POST data. If the blacklist of goo.gl is in meta, then it probably makes sense for the exception to be made at that level as well. - ʄɭoʏɗiaɲ τ ¢ 13:15, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
OI, I thought that was part of WP:ELNEVER, but it is separate: Wikipedia:External links#Redirection sites. To me, there were only very, very few exceptions so I thought it should be part of WP:ELNEVER. However, I think it is only true for any site that can be used to circumvent the spam-blacklist in an abusive way or just makes live way more difficult - this is certainly not one of them. I guess:  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:52, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Partially delisted on meta. MER-C 08:55, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

About-Us.FindTheBest.com[edit]

  • findthebest.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • Article:FindTheBest
  • This is the "about us" section of FindTheBest.com. A link to the site would be useful in the company "info box" section of the article. Wikipedia articles for similar tech companies/websites have a URL to the site in the "info box", for example Kayak.com, Zillow, Quora and Wolfram Alpha to name a few.
  • Also, I would like to add the FindTheBest logo to the "info box" but I cannot upload a logo and attribute the image to a screenshot from FindTheBest because the URL is blacklisted. How can I cite the image as a screenshot?
  • Disclosure: I am an employee of FindTheBest. The article has been discussed on the COI Noticeboard, the Spam-blacklist and the Notability board.

Evan (talk) 23:16, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done!
Hi again Evan, and congratulations on writing a decent, neutral article about your employer and getting it vetted by the community. To reference a blacklisted URL in an uploaded image, simply omit the http:// part of the URL. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:36, 10 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Amatulić ! I've learned a lot through the process and it's sparked my interest in contributing to other pages as well. Thanks again for your help, suggestions and guidance. Evan (talk) 00:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to change the link from about-us.findthebest.com to www.findthebest.com/about-us. These are two different pages and the latter is the actual "about us" page. Thanks Evan (talk) 16:25, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

FindTheBest.com/about-us[edit]

  • A link to "about-us.findthebest.com" was previously added to the whitelist (removed from the blocked list) but this is not the proper "about us" page of the website. The correct "about us" page of the website is found at this link: "findthebest.com/about-us". I would like to get the link whitelisted so it can be replace the old link in the infobox at FindTheBest. Thank you Evan (talk) 15:45, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. The old entry has been corrected to whitelist findthebest.com/about-us instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skins.net[edit]

skins.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This URL was blacklisted in 2008 because it was associated with an overly promotional article by the company entitled "Skins Compression Garments": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=208662258#Skins_Compression_Garments There's now an impartial article on Skins (sportswear) which would benefit from having skins.net/index.aspx in the company infobox. There's also a page on the domain which outlines the scientific benefits of compression clothing in general as well as Skins, so this might be useful as a reference to the existing compression sportswear article: skins.net/why-skins/skins-science.aspx Erj501 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for skins.net/index.aspx.  Not done for skins.net/why-skins/skins-science.aspx, because this page is primarily promotional. While that page does contain references to legitimate research articles, it would be best to reference those articles directly as needed, and as far as I can tell they are all available offsite from skins.net. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

maketheshift.uservoice.com[edit]

I want to be able to link to maketheshift.uservoice.com/forums/168487-ideas-submission/suggestions/3032206-wolvopedia-make-wolverhampton-a-wikipedia-city from various talk and project pages, in order to raise awareness of my proposal there, for a Wikipedia outreach project along the lines of Monmouthpedia. Please note this is time-sensitive; the presentation event is on 21 September. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 13:51, 7 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Added to the page, please check that I did it correctly, the exact link should work. The Helpful One 15:37, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's working; many thanks. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:01, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Denied requests[edit]

Clipmarks[edit]

clipmarks.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

No idea why the hell anyone would even blacklist this, but anyway, I need to insert it into the article I'm writing about Clipmarks, so...yeah. Please whitelist.--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 05:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It was blocked globally in 2009, because it just wraps a frame with ads around any other page (which allows it to be used to link to other blacklisted pages). See m:Talk:Spam blacklist/Archives/2009-07#clipmarks.com. I see the site is currently "discontinued", pointing to a replacement at "clipboard.com"; I've requested that also be blacklisted globally. Anomie⚔ 16:55, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please try to see whether there is a specific link representing the site that can be whitelisted, without it being the whole domain. E.g. for 'en.wikipedia.org' we would not whitelist that, but 'en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_Page'. Often there is an index.html or an about.htm or something similar that is useful. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:38, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? I have no clue what you mean by "wraps a frame with ads around any other page"? It collected clipped bookmarks from sites, I never saw it frame anything, anywhere, with or without ads. It was just full of annotated images. You must be confusing something...--Newbiepedian (Hailing Frequencies) 15:31, 1 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done due to no explicit URL specified, and the site is defunct anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:26, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skins.net[edit]

skins.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This URL was blacklisted in 2008 because it was associated with an overly promotional article by the company entitled "Skins Compression Garments": http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam&oldid=208662258#Skins_Compression_Garments There's now an impartial article on Skins (sportswear) which would benefit from having skins.net/index.aspx in the company infobox. There's also a page on the domain which outlines the scientific benefits of compression clothing in general as well as Skins, so this might be useful as a reference to the existing compression sportswear article: skins.net/why-skins/skins-science.aspx Erj501 (talk) 13:05, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

 Done for skins.net/index.aspx.  Not done for skins.net/why-skins/skins-science.aspx, because this page is primarily promotional. While that page does contain references to legitimate research articles, it would be best to reference those articles directly as needed, and as far as I can tell they are all available offsite from skins.net. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:57, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

volunteers.magnify.net/video/Be-The-Star-You-Are[edit]

Hi I would like to add this to an article about Cynthia Brian which I am working on now. This video talks about her and reinforces what I wrote. I would be relevant for the article I am publishing soon on Cynthia Brian. Thank You. --Navigator01 (talk) 02:45, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, since the article did not survive in main space. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:47, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com, one specific page[edit]

please add the following page. 1. www.examiner.com/article/arlington-jones-presents-the-way-i-hear-it 2. For this page: CalebSean page that is in the process of being created: here is the sandbox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Copious_323/Caleb_Sean_McCampbell 3. It is useful because it is a link to the article of Caleb's jazz performances in the area, which solidifies him not just as a producer for Beyonce, but also a performing musician Copious 323 (talk) 22:42, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why do you think this is a reliable source? Have you read the /Common requests? MER-C 03:53, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined due to lack of response. Also I'm not sure I see the need for permitting a questionable link for something that isn't in main article space. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, I'd like to object to this article not being considered. I have read the Common requests, however, this article is written by Fred Willis, who is a generally well known Gospel reviewer. Also, the information contained in the article is pertinent to establishing the performing background of the Artist, as well as commenting on the background of his family. The main article speaks directly to his experience studying under Arlington Jones, as well as his Father, who was in a popular boy band group in the 1980s. This is all contained in the article, and therefore it is pertinent to support the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Copious 323 (talk • contribs) 06:04, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CalebSean does not currently exist. In addition to the reasons given above, it doesn't appear to be useful. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 15:43, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

bestonlinedating.co.uk/blog/best-dating-sites-uk/be2-adapts-online-matchmaking-product-to-requirements-of-local-markets/[edit]

This is obviously an affiliate page picking up on a Danish story regarding the online dating company be2 that is also mentioned on Wikipedia. The information given here is very vague, and the only other available information is on a Danish website, which doesn't seem to be a useful source to link to. www.dr.dk/DR1/kontant/2011/01/25143954.htm A rough Google translation shows that the content of the English article her quite accurately reflects the outline of the cited consumer watchdog TV story and the company's responses. www.bestonlinedating.co.uk/blog/best-dating-sites-uk/be2-adapts-online-matchmaking-product-to-requirements-of-local-markets/ Although the source contains tradedoubler banners, the story itself does not contain any affiliate links and I think it would contribute to the article by providing specific details on the case in English. Thanks for looking into this. Weirdly-curious (talk) 15:31, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Most of your request contains sufficient reason not to allow this site as a link. Please link to the Danish article instead. It is the original, therefore more authoritative source, and anyone who is curious can fire up a translator to get the gist of what it says. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:45, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

cypress.com[edit]

  • cypress.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
  • Article: UART
  • This is an article for a topic in microcontrollers, for which I wish to add an external source which presents additional technical information and usage examples.
  • These sources will be independent material created by Cypress.com employees as well as others in the electronics community (students/hobbyists)
  • All relevant sources will start in www.cypress.com/?rID=. Since I'm not sure if a specific substring of a URL can be white-listed, I request you to kindly do so for the domain.

Kn8alpha (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. While we can add wildcard URLs as you suggested, it makes no sense to add them in anticipation of future usefulness. Each page would need to be reviewed and possibly discussed at WP:RSN first, on a case-by-case basis. Furthermore, I am hesitant to whitelist a URL at the request of a new account with no established history, who appears to have a conflict of interest with the company. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:36, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the info, Amatulić. I assumed that since the links would point to neutral academic/reference material, it would not be considered as Conflict_of_interest. Hope that I wouldn't run into similar problems with other domains. Yes, I'm a new account with no established history, but I'll try to contribute by other ways, with support from this community. Kn8alpha (talk) 10:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, as I said, we won't white-list them based on a promise that such links will be useful in the future. When a page on that site comes into existence that you would like to reference, post another whitelist request with a specific URL for us to examine and we can revisit this. Thanks for your understanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:21, 18 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

A couple of Lulu links[edit]

I was creating a page for novelist Dayanara Ryelle that included the links to the physical copies of her books (on Lulu) and the Kindle editions on Amazon, but the system rejected the Lulu link. After checking another request on something that was available on Lulu, I noticed the direction to review WP:ELNO. I did and saw that links to pages that sell things aren't permitted. Shall I leave the links to Amazon out, too, just to be on the safe side? (I'd really like to promote Daya's books for her, but I suppose that's what her official site is for.) Jamiesfangirl (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising". no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 13:49, 25 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

backupurl.com/zo9cxt[edit]

Requesting whitelist of specifc backupurl page. I used an article as a reference in Daily Mail#Famous_stories (currently reference 57, Private Eye 1305) that has since been taken down. Fortunately, I created a backup using backupurl.com at the above address, which I would like to include using the archiveurl and deadurl parameters of the reference. The reference is important as it provides a useful summary of the section from a reputable news outlet. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 11:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Additional supporting reasons: the Private Eye is a reputable publication that prominently features criticisms of other newspapers and media, and this article in particular highlights hypocrisy in the Daily Mail. There doesn't seem to be any other reliable online source for this article, and BackupURL.com claims keep a given URL untouched indefinitely. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 17:41, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Have you looked at /Common requests? There are reasons why we don't link to URL shorteners. Among other things, backupurl.com doesn't seem to reveal the original URL, so there's no way to know if the saved page was legitimate or a forgery.
If you're using this as a citation, citations do not need external links if the link no longer exists. An alternative link appears to be here: http://rightsandwrongs.co.uk/component/content/article/12620-reference-streets-of-shame-private-eye ~Amatulić (talk) 18:06, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have indeed, but backupurl.com is not just a URL shortener but a mirror service. I completely support the blacklisting of backupurl.com links except in cases where a specific URL has been verified to not be circumventing a block and to be of value. In this case, the scraped page is not from a blacklisted domain/URL.
There are several places that have copied the content of the article into their own page (such as that to which you linked), but these are much more prone to tampering than an automatic mirror service such as backupurl.
Of course, a link is not required, but should be there to assist in verification of the cited material. I would prefer no link at all than a copy/pasted article. However, until such a time as backupurl.com has been shown to tamper with the content of any page that it mirrors, in this specific case it provides a valuable and relatively trustworthy aid to the verification of cited material.
So, to summarise the arguments against allowing this exception and my rebuttals:
  • It obfuscates the original URL, potentially blacklisting the source.
This is why backupurl.com links should be blocked by default, but in this case the mirrored page is from a domain that is not blocked and was previously used, except that the content has been removed and is no longer hosted online.
  • The material is available from other sources
Those other sources are manually copy/pasted pages and so are much more liable to tampering post hoc, rendering them much less reliable sources. That they exist provides a modicum of verification for the content currently hosted at the above URL.
  • As the original page is not available, it is not possible to verify the content of the mirrored page on backupurl.com
The other copy/pasted pages currently agree, providing some degree of verification. The sensible alternative would be to have no link at all, forcing all verification of the cited material to rely on people having access to the print edition of the publication in question. Is it better to have no link at all than one that currently appears valid, with no evidence to believe the contrary?
Does that address your concerns? — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 21:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's been more than 2 weeks with no response to this. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 13:29, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
To answer your final question: Citations do not require links. Links are a convenience, not a necessity, on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for responding. (That's not sarcastic; I'm grateful for a response).
OK, so what reason is there to keep this specific URL blocked? Or must a link fulfil particular criteria to be worthy of an exception being made? — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 23:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
We simply do not need to use indirect urls, direct urls work perfectly fine. Redirecting urls are abused, and problematic for that reason. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Understood, but in this case, the original URL is no longer active as the content has been removed and the URL now redirects to a more recent article. I used backupurl to make a copy of the page before the content was archived. While the printed publication is still available in libraries, the backupurl page is the only one I know of that makes a faithful reproduction of the article online. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 09:54, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Can I please get some feedback on this issue? I believe I have outlined why this URL is useful to include. It is not a redirection URL, but a mirror of content no longer available online. A print publication is available, but inclusion of this URL would allow for speedier verification of claims. — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 08:59, 15 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You got feedback, and you answered your own question by stating that the printed publication is available. Online sources are not a requirement for Wikipedia references.
Marking this issue as  Not done. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:16, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, thanks for taking the time to explain your reasoning. Have a nice day :-) — Posted by Luke Goodsell, 18:14, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Calendar Published by AIP on lulu.com[edit]

lulu.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I would like to insert a reference link to a calendar published on that site by the American Institute of Physics: http://www. lulu. com/content/legacy-lulustudio-calendar/esva-2012-calendar/11198291 See the use case here: Betsy Ancker-Johnson Erkcan (talk) 22:14, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, it has been a month since I made this request. Could you please have a look? Thanks. Erkcan (talk) 21:03, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Not done. That link fails WP:ELNO as its sole purpose is to sell a product. Why not go to the original AIP source for the same information? See http://www.aip.org/aip/aipmatters/archive/2011/11_14_11.html which is not blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks a lot, I had not been able to find that original reference. Despite a very long response time, I think it was worth the wait - thanks for your efforts.Erkcan (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Let Me Google That For You[edit]

I would understand blacking this website out for most purposes, considering that it could be abused as a link and used as a weapon of personal attack inappropriate on a wikipedia page. However, I believe it should be allowed on the page describing the concept "Let Me Google That For You" in order to describe it as a ubiquitous enough phrase to warrant a website named after it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.63.54.224 (talk • contribs) 12:55, 14 May 2012‎

no Declined. See LMGTFY.com_on_article_RTFM. --Hu12 (talk) 04:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

seazoria.com[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

Seazoria.com 1. The links and articles will be used to populate the Wikipedia database for others to use for research and information of the discovery of the Hallettestoneion Seazoria Dragons and the advanced marine biology. These sites contain Important Valid and Verified information of the discovery, field research, excavation and photos of the biggest discovery in history. The Hallettestoneion Seazoria Dragons, discovered by Mike Hallett should be whitelisted and available for public search. Unsure as to why the hubpages.com/Seazoria was blocked but now needs to be released.

2. seazoria.com, seazoria.hubpages.com, scribd.com/seazoria

3.seazoria.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com seazoria.hubpages.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com scribd.com/seazoria: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com JenEda (talk) 23:05, 30 May 2012 (UTC)JenEda[reply]

no Declined. The domain seazoria.com doesn't appear to be blacklisted, neither on the English Wikipedia nor on meta. No action is required. If you are experiencing a blacklist message, please explain here.
As for seazoria.hubpages.com and scribd.com, they will remain blacklisted. Please see /Common requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
{{Additional Information}}. Thank you Amatulic. We have read /Common requests and understand the denied use of hubpages.com. However, we are willing to go the Extra Mile for the Seazoria articles. These articles are reliable and we are not connected with the site owner of hubpages in any way shape or form. We are happy to proceed. I did not notice Scribd.com listed on the /Common requests. and unsure as to how to proceed and use them in our page creations for the Hallettestoneion Seazoria Dragons page. Thank You In Advance. JenEda (talk) 01:49, 31 May 2012 (UTC)JenEda[reply]
The concern here is that youve requested this before, and in doing so stated;
"All the Seazoria pages belong to my partner, Mike Hallett."
Cleary you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI). Which you did acknowledged April 10th The External Links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states explicitly; "you should avoid linking to a site that you own, maintain, or represent—even if WP guidelines seem to imply that it may otherwise be linked." and is in line with WP's conflict-of-interest guidelines. There's a multitude of issues involved in this case. but truly the most concerning are the statements;
Wikipedia is WP:NOT a vehicle for advertising and since you have no other contributions other than related to seazoria.com, the policy Wikipedia:BLOCK#Disruption could also be applied here;
There also may be issues that seazoria.com may fail Wikipedia's core content policies:
Several times you've alluded to publishing mikes pages here to Wikipedia[2][3], understand we do not allow WP:OR. Wile the primary url is not currently blacklisted, there appears to be a clear intent to populate Wikipedia with these links and their content. I'll be adding this to Xlinkbot as a result. hubpages.com and Scribd are no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 02:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Attn:Hu12 It is not my intent to spam or allude to anything but to try and understand the appropriate method for Mike Hallett to add his OWN pages. He is not computer literate enough to understand the wikipedia methods. I will not be publishing the pages, Mike Hallett will be doing the articles not me.(Mike is my partner)but for him to do them I need to understand the process to show him how. I am sorry you find it necessary to belittle someone that is new to this forum and trying to self educate by asking questions. The Seazoria pages are not self promoting,or for the primary purpose of promoting a person, company, product, service, or organization. This is a historical discovery that has actual scientific facts surrounding this discovery and worthy of being in an encyclopedia environment. I guess maybe I posted to the wrong board to ask "newbie" type questions. My apologies.. Where should I have started? Many of you have been doing the admin duties and write-ups for a long time, I am merely trying to understand the process so that I may assist another in posting the article in the correct place with the correct citations. You mention adding the url to the Xlinkbot, what is that?? The way it is worded sounds to me that you are already planning to block it. Which in turn would prevent the real author Mike H to write any articles pertaining to this discovery. Is my assumption correct? The Content is verifiable, reliable and will be coming from the discoverer himself.. Not from me. JenEda (talk) 05:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)JenEda[reply]

Since you clearly stated you and mike "will" be adding link in order to "populate the Wikipedia database" (despite acknowledging the policy April 10th, would be in apparent violation of Conflict of interest and anti-spam guidelines). I've added it to Xlinkbot in order to monitor those additions. You have made multiple requests 10 April 2012, 29 May 2012, 30 May 2012 for removal of something that is not listed. Seazoria.com is not blacklisted, nor has it ever been. As for the issue issues that seazoria.com may fail Wikipedia's core content policies, I see nothing other than the primary source listed in these quick searches;
Please also don't cross post(as you did on my page) the same message to multiple pages as duplicate discussions become confusing. Neutrality is an important objective at Wikipedia, so here are some related guidelines to be aware of;
I have added a welcome message on your talk page which has links that should answer all your other editing type related questions. The MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist is for administration of the Wikipedia project and not intended as a help desk for editing questions. Closed. thanks.--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Page: MokiMobility.com/about[edit]

To be added to the article MokiMobility describing the company and services it provides. --Bradem1976 (talk) 18:26, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined, since the article has been speedy-deleted under WP:CSD#A7. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page: usedbabies.zapto.org[edit]

usedbabies.zapto.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • usedpabies.zapto.org/bang

To be added to the article Bang!

I created a web version of Bang! I added links to the Bang! page with the IP address of the website. The IP address has changed. Now the server uses the No-ip redirector URL zapto.org. It is understandable that this free service would be abused and blocked by default. 70.27.36.33 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2012 (UTC)ccarrster@gmail.com[reply]

no Declined. We don't white-list a web page at the request of a web page owner. That page is very sparse, there is no way it could be used as a reference in the article, and clearly doesn't belong as an external link according to WP:ELNO. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:37, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

skatecycle.freeforums.org[edit]

Hey, please do nod and give a green light for this only forum for the Skatecycle article: Qubric (talk) 20:11, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined with prejudice. Fails WP:ELNO, and totally not suitable for referencing let alone having a stand-alone link in an article. That site opens up a spam "you have won!" page upon the first access, and is in no way an official forum site for the product. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What Do you mean with "You have won"? I am just giving an information that google is refusing. How do you want people to engage in improving this article? When even a link is declined. I am not from the producer team but i just try to study and explore the vehicle 217.185.67.79 (talk) 17:11, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is just one of the spam messages that pop up when I access the site. It may not be the fault of the skatecycle forum; the ad may be put there by the freeforums service. In any case, please review WP:ELNO. This is a newly-created forum, with hardly any activity on it, and is not an official resource for Skatecycle. You would not be able to use it in a citation within the article because it's a forum, and it can't be used as a stand-alone link because it isn't an official site. Even if freeforums.org were not blacklisted, that link would never survive in the article.
You ask, "how do you want people to engage in improving this article?" You improve an article by expanding its encyclopedic content, not by adding external links. External links are a convenience, not a necessity, for an encyclopedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:28, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Total posts 13 • Total topics 11 • Total members 2 • WP:LINKSTOAVOID # 1,4,10,11. Agreed..no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 20:56, 7 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I never surf with JavaScript. And btw this seems to be the only forum yet Qubric (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Other people do surf that way, and we can't have Wikipedia be the conduit for potential malware. The fact that it's the only forum is irrelevant. Bottom line, according to Wikipedia guidelines, it can't be used as a reference and it isn't suitable as a stand-alone external link. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:12, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Uncensored Interview for Amanda Palmer[edit]

Wanting to add the link to Amanda Palmer's interview about #LOFNOTC from Uncensored Interview's website. Specifically, I wanto to link to: uncensoredinterview.com/vlogs/11836-amanda-palmer-friday-night-freaks-er-lofnotc. Not sure why this would even need to be blocked. Is it due to profanity? It's one of the main sources to document the beginning of her fan group on Twitter. Thanks. LKPotts talk 2:42AM, 14 June 2012 (EST)

no Declined. It is blacklisted due to a spamming incident from 2008. There are over 600,000 Google hits for interviews with Amanda Palmer. Surely a few of those would be sufficient for citing in the article? ~Amatulić (talk) 01:03, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

LMGTFY.com on article RTFM[edit]

In the article RTFM, specificially the item LMGTFY in the list in the section RTFM#Encouraging the use of at least a basic search. This is the one article where the link should be allowed. It explains the acronym and its common use, and couldn't be more directly relevant - the website is the reason for the popularity of the acronym. I see this request was denied in 2010 but no reason was given, it was just two no votes "I don't see why", despite policy. Also the article is better now. (I'd appreciate whoever replies putting a {{Talkback}} on my talk page since watching this page is impractical as it doesn't break up into sub-pages like the other meta-discussions eg. AfD...) ··gracefool☺ 22:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. The RTFM article gives a mere mention to the acronym LMGTFY, does not mention the domain lmgtfy.com anywhere, and I see no evidence that the acronym exists because of that web site rather than the other way round. It cannot possibly used as a citation for anything in the article. Furthermore, the original request was declined also because this venue is for requesting white-listing of specific pages, not whitelisting entire domains. Finally, see also /Common requests, the part about URL shorteners. The domain lmgtfy.com is a URL shortener, and requests to whitelist those are almost always denied because they are used to get around blacklists. ~Amatulic (talk) 23:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[I was unsure after editing the declined section whether it would be seen as a new request so I've shrunken the original request and decline in small text here, also there is a user above with a pending request for the same (we may need a page in the initial section of this page linked to a description of how these sections should be edited)]
Reopening previous user's request. RTFM is the redirect for "lmgtfy". There is no page the describe the site lmgtfy.com either. Before today I didn't know we had an external link blacklist. I was originally removing the reference to LMGTFY being the source of the website as it is likely the other way around (the site owners seem to be active on a few forums and could probably be asked outright).
I was adding a link to their mainpage as well as an example of what the site actually does (in this case I was having result in a Google search for "wikipedia" ("lmgtfy.com/?q=wikipedia"). The site itself is simply a javascript animation describing a Google search with the result being the actual search results on google.com. Lmgtfy.com is not a URL shortener (additional evidence is from LongURL which lists known shorteners).
If anything, if the site is not to be removed from the blacklist (of which I may start a specific discussion on the blacklist talk page if necessary), at least whitelisting "lmgtfy.com/?q=wikipedia" should be plausible as it is innocuous, gets the point across, and provides at least some hint as to a potential source or common use when there is none elsewhere on Wikipedia. LMGTFY would likely make for a very short stub which is a likely reason it became a redirect (I haven't check the history of the redirect). I am leaving what I intended to say commented out in RTFM#Encouraging the use of at least a basic search until this is resolved. Zephalis (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
One other option would be limited whitelisting on a stub for lmgtfy.com and producing a disambiguation for LMGTFY and lmgtfy.com. [is wikipage specific whitelisting of links possible?] Zephalis (talk) 03:38, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
LMGTFY.COM uses a script which creates a redirecting URL for search results on another domain. Specifically, LMGTFY.COM is a Link normally to be avoided and fails all of Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Perhaps this might have its place outside of wikipedia, however, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here, such as lmgtfy.com.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 03:47, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
After reading the description and the pages you listed I understand why links to the domain are improper. Would an exception be made if the link was on a wikipage specific to lmgtfy.com? The reason I ask is that what lmgtfy.com does cannot be properly presented with still images. Would an animated GIF be a better choice? Zephalis (talk) 03:31, 31 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
A Wikipedia article on lmgtfy.com, assuming it would survive a deletion proposal, would be deserving of a link to the site that is the topic of such an article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Pattern day trader[edit]

Please add the following the page. Thanks.

Say you buy 100 shares of IBM stock one day, then next day sell 100 shares of IBM. Towards the end of the second day, you buy 100 shares of IBM stock. This is not a day trade. http://ngureco.hubpages.com/hub/Rules-of-Day-Trading-Pattern-Day-Trader-Restrictions-and-Pattern-Day-Trades-Examples

Imagine Reason (talk) 20:05, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the purpose of whitelisting this? There are thousands of sites out there that describe pattern day trading. I see over 38,000 Google hits for the string "pattern day trader", many of which would be an equal or better quality source than somebody's personal hubpages site.
The example given doesn't apply to pattern day trading because the trades must be day trades, not position trades held overnight. That much should be clear enough from the official SEC source, and it's already clear in the pattern day trader article. Therefore, this request is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:22, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner Movie Review of "Travelling Salesman" by Jonathan Newman[edit]

Please add the following page: 1. examiner.com/review/travelling-salesman-walking-the-tightrope-of-morality-math-science 2. For this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Travelling_Salesman_(2012_film) 3. It is useful because it is the first review of the film following its premiere. 4. According to your "commonly requested sites" page, the Examiner is a self-written, commission paying site. However, the particular link in question, which I am attempting to get put on the whitelist, is pretty much the only review of this particular film that exists following the premiere, and therefore should be a pertinent part of the main article on the film itself. The film does not play again until the New York International Film Festival later this summer, so it is necessary to get the only review from the premiere cited and quoted on the article. The author, Jonathan Newman, is well established as a film reviewer, and has been doing so since 1996 (http://jonnewman.com/reviews.htm). Thank you kindly Thebaueroflove (talk) 20:50, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why this particular review instead of a number of others? For example:
I don't see that these reviews are so rare that we need to white-list yet another examiner.com page. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for reviewing the case. The third review MAY work. However, just for your information, links 1, 2, and 4 are not actually reviews of the film, but reactions to the trailer. Those reviewers have not seen the film yet and are just working off the trailer and synopsis. I think a review from someone who actually attended the premiere would be an important part of the article. Review #3 seems to be someone who saw some advanced clips, and is dated a month before the premiere. I hope you can reconsider. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thebaueroflove (talk • contribs) 02:13, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Home page for Vallejo Community Issues Examiner[edit]

Currently Wikipedia has a wholesale block on my parent company URL. I am asking that my home page URL for the Vallejo Community Issues Examiner be whitelisted so that I can add it to the Media section of the city of Vallejo page on Wikipedia. I have been editing and publishing this blog in Vallejo for 3.5 years and am a respected member of the media community not only in Vallejo but also around the world. I am a veteran business, technology and lifestyle journalist with many local, regional, national and international outlets to my credit. PKutza (talk) 21:51, 22 June 2012 (UTC)Patricia Kutza 14:25, 22 June 2012[reply]

First, please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You clearly have one.
Second, blogs are usually links to be avoided.
Third, we don't whitelist sites based on the request of the site owner or company representative. If a trusted, high-volume editor deems your blog necessary for enhancing the value of an article, we would consider such a request. Until then, however, this request must be no Declined. Thank you for your understanding. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

youtube, one particular video[edit]

this is a request to allow a link to a you tube video to be posted on the wiki page for David Tinker. i trust i am giving you the information requested. David Tinker was my brother, and was killed in the Falklands war, aged 25. he wrote a series of fairly remarkable poems as a teenager which were only discovered after his death. some of them have been published in the book "Letters from the Falklands" and one is on the SAMA 82 website, because i posted it there. this last mentioned poem which is particularly remarkable has been set to music, and was given its first performance in november last year, around remembrance day. the video in question is a practice version, a pre performance version, of that poem as performed in its musical form. it is totally unique and unavailable anywhere else. i have put it together, with the composer's permission, and with my own photographs, as a tribute to my brother on the 30th anniversary of the falklands war and of his death. it is a personal tribute to someone who is no longer around, and serves to keep his memory alive, and to make his unique view of the world available to others. it is not the greatest work of art ever, of course, but it speaks to people, and i sincerely believe it is worth being within the public realm. as wikipedia is certainly the source that people might turn to first to find out something about him, this seems to me the best place for this tribute. the url code on the youtube site is AQlIAciYul0. perhaps you need it written as youtu.be/AQlIAciYul0.

mark tinker

82.138.218.177 (talk) 20:53, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Youtube.com is not blacklisted. Youtu.be is blacklisted and will remain so. There is no reason to whitelist one link on youtu.be when the full link on youtube.com is available. Please use the full URL for youtube.com.
While I sympathize with your loss, I must ask that you please read WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Wikipedia is not a place to post memorials or tributes. Wikipedia is not a place to keep someone's memory alive. Best of luck including the link, but it will probably be kept in the David Tinker article. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

u2know[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Related with the decision of the site to be removed

I'm sorry to say but why you don't publish and READ first how nice my collaborator was speaking with those "gentleman's" such as OhnoisJamie ..and so on, asking KINDLY for professional explanation WHY the site was removed and OTHERS like "livescience.com" which has more than 500 links on wikipedia has "the right" to promote . ONLY one of the "wise" answer and NOT to mention that he removed 2-3 times the discussion on his talk page :

" So before i will make my actions, can you PLEASE response in an official wiki way, WHY YOU REMOVE SOME LINKS AND THOSE LIKE :livescience.com which are MORE than 500 you don't do anything ???? Or soooo many have pages which even don't exist ?

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Search&search=livescience.com&redirs=1&profile=default

I'm waiting a professional answer from your side before you will erase again this topic

Unlike your dime-a-dozen news aggregator site, livescience is notable enough to have it's own article, and furthermore qualifies as a reliable source. If I see your site pop up again I will add it to the spam blacklist. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


Or "Mr" Apokryltaros who DOESN'T even read the text, because he doesn't WANT to scroll my article ????? (look on

So, is is "PERSONAL INTEREST " here ? Does apply with wikipedia policy ??? This "gentleman's", and then 2 others (and you can find them easily) were deleting 2-5 links to SOME of good articles, WITHOUT ANY explanation, just : "SPAM"

Well, my dear Admins ....if i read (AND you should) the policy of Wikipedia which says is a "free" ...etc ...and what means SPAM and personal interest , you will find out that here "something is fishy ". I would like a REAL professional explanation on ALL "breaking" rules policy of Wikipedia like : SPAM,Personal Interest,rude explanations and how some web sites with couple of articles which contain 2-3 phrases with some ....extremly basic info's which can be found anywhere on net HAVE the RIGHT to be present ... " if i don't ask to much. At least i deserve those explanation and i'm apologies for my collaborator "rude " behavior after was mentally stress by some admins explanations.

Thank you— 46.146.40.223 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 03:52, 19 July 2012‎ (UTC).[reply]

Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, particularly when they were involved in spamming them. Wikipedia's fundamental purpose is to create an encyclopedia of free content, not free to spam or promote your adjenda. Here are some of the violations:
The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other links in articles do or don't exist; because there's nothing stopping anyone from adding any link to any article. Plenty of links exist that probably shouldn't, conversly many links don't exist that probably should. So just pointing out that livescience.com exists in an article doesn't prove that the u2know.net should also exist. After multi year spamming abuse, adding multiple related adsense domains from similar IP ranges as yours, and statements like, " FU* off you co*k suc*er ! ".. the answer to this request is the same reasons given here. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 15:10, 19 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, i got it ! Thx for your extremely professional answer, which was by the way the same as previously. And you still didn't make any comments on HOW the admins in the beginning were replaying to my associate request.(and i'm speaking aboute rude, unclear and abusive answers)Replay's like : "because i want ...because your site is NOT worth to be here ...and so on ... " AFETER those answers , in such way my colleague just "explode" ! Just ONE and last example : HOW can "Mr" Apokryltarosand Mr. OhNoitsJamie give answers like : your article doesn't have ANY good info's and there are no pictures, when HE DIDN'T EVEN click on picture gallery or scroll down the article ??? Mr Apokryltarosand believe himself as being a GREAT Scientolog ??? ...then he SHOULD READ carefully what i wrote there because i make research in different areas to write down some articles. I think he didn't read as many i did books in the library or trying to gather info's about particular articles. SO ???? How you answer here ? Or Mr's OhNoitsJamie answer : "your site is NOT worth " (????) but livescience does" ????? i mean ....can you tell me WHICH ARE CRITERIAS ? te be worthed ? Livescience has over 

links !!!!!!! all over wikipedia, with "multi years spam"  !!!

So ...when i pointed and report this NO ONE DOES ANYTHING !!! Why ?


This are the real examples which you didn't want to replay . I was convince that you role is to be impartial, but again it seems that you just back up all each other . And by the way, there is a link on wikipedia were ANY user/non user CAN point to some spam or abusive advertising. I did this speaking about livescience and .... what ? I think here the personal interest is bigger then the desire of developing. Did you check like you did with my site ALL external links from the wikipedia to see "abusive " yearly spam ? I'm telling you now AGAIN, "officially" : Check on ALL possible methods links like " livescience.com" ...and then you can say you are impartial.


So JUST to be right and impartial, CAN YOU ASWER to my underlined questions ? Thx for you kindness and impartiality ! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.177.42.202 (talk) 04:46, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is u2know.com, not some other site that you think (without any evidence) was spammed. You must demonstrate how u2know.com is a reliable source or a worthwhile external link. Since you have not done this and in light of the abuse mentioned above (and that we rarely whitelist sites at the request of their owners), this request is Rejected and closed. You need to read User:MER-C/SmartQuestions before even considering a new request. MER-C 07:22, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Site xuarez.comoj.com[edit]

I'm the owner of the site xuarez.comoj.com It's a recent site and it's part of a research project of Valladolid University (Spain). There's no malicious software, there's no spam or publicity in the site. It's an academic site. It could be relevant for entries as Alonso Xuárez I'm a professor and the web is part of our university work. I have detected the problem is with the domine comoj.com, that is in the Spam black list since 2009, but our site has nothing to see with it.

We proposed to remove our site of black list as you can see in m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-04#xuarez.comoj.com and we received the idea of to use this way.

We had the same problem with SiteAdvisor of McAfee. With them the problem was there was a site called comoj.com with malicious software, but there's no relation betwen comoj.com and xuarez.comoj.com, our site. McAfee has rectified. You can see our request here: https://community.mcafee.com/thread/44163.

Then, we propose the site xuarez.comoj.com was whitelisted

Thank you for your help

--Axuarez (talk) 21:08, 30 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

We generally don't white-list at the request of a site owner although I am not opposed to it in this case. I'd like some others to comment. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no Unnecessary: The website has since migrated to a provider who is not comoj [dot] com. no Declined. AGK [•] 00:23, 31 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Statsheet[edit]

statsheet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com Hi, I was wondering if statsheet.com/mcb/referees/gene-steratore could be used as a reference for the Gene Steratore article to document some general information about his refereeing (e.g., conferences he officiates in, total number of games officiated, etc.). The site has similar stats for numerous NCAA officials and I think Wikipedia benefits from having articles on more well known refs such as Steratore (who also refs NFL--his primary job). I didn't want to add the information w/o citations, so I will wait for some sort of answer until I do so. Thank you. Go Phightins! (talk) 00:10, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone? Go Phightins! (talk) 14:00, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2011#statsheet.com_and_associated_sites. There has been a massive problem on Wikipedia involving many sockpuppets and hundreds of domains related to statsheet. They have deliberately targeted Wikipedia in ways to get around blacklisting. This is a fansite that has gone over the top in its abusive activities, it has long overstayed its welcome and all its related domains need to be expunged from Wikipedia forever. That is my view. On the other hand, I have no objection to another admin whitelisting all the referees pages if judged an appropriate reliable source. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 17 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I was unaware of the previous spam issues, but I've been using this site to look of college basketball officials for years and found most of its information to be completely reliable and invaluable to some of my research. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the site appears as an external link in Ed Hightower. Go Phightins! (talk) 01:33, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That link existed before the blacklisting. If that link is removed from the article, it cannot be added back. The same is true for all 356 other statsheet links currently on Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:54, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am just perturbed that (in my estimation) the only site for referee info. can't be used to cite on wikipedia. Go Phightins! (talk) 19:03, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Well they brought it upon themselves. I stated my view above, but welcome an alternative viewpoint from another admin. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no Declined but open to new requests for specific URLs, or maybe a class of URLs, on a case-by-case basis. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 13 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

(Yet another) source from Examiner.com[edit]

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.


www.examiner.com/article/zeitgeist-media-festival-challenges-the-world-to-be-positive

I'd like to use this article to enhance The Zeitgeist Movement, specifically in support of the following statement: The Zeitgeist Movement also holds an annual event called the Zeitgeist Media Festival (ZMF), featuring artivists such as The Lost Children of Babylon, Marianne Williamson, Lili Haydn, Cofield Mundi, James Cromwell, Rutger Hauer, Peter Joseph,[1] Rick Overton and Katie Goodman.

References in support (including the specific article from examiner.com):

<ref>[http://www.zeitgeistmediafestival.org/index.html Zeitgeist Media Festival Official Website]</ref> <ref> Zeitgeist Media Festival Challenges the World to Be Positive, Vicki Godal, [[Examiner.com]], 3 August 2012.</ref> <ref>[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_btXktBTEi8 The Zeitgeist Movement discussion], [[RT (TV network)|RT TV]], Sept. 14, 2011</ref>

Thanks and regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 22:51, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to include every possible tidbit in an article. Even if there were a reliable source, that kind of material has no encyclopedic value, and is typical of fluff which has recently been removed from the article by several editors. Johnuniq (talk) 23:02, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Media Festival is not fluff. It is an important part of the activism of the movement and its mission (education, expanding awareness, creating a new train of thought, elevating people's minds, ...) The Media Festival also supports the rest of the article, and has been discussed on RT TV (link above). And the material recently removed was not fluff either, and is still under active discussion and debate on the article talk page, and, if necessary, a DRN. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 23:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is a little misleading, to say the least. The 'active discussion' consisted of you arguing endlessly for inclusion, and everyone else telling you it wasn't appropriate. And do you have WP:RS for TZM "elevating people's minds"? ;). AndyTheGrump (talk) 14:20, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Andy, (a) welcome back. I missed your insights and feedback. (I'm not being sarcastic nor facetious.) (b) I did not have the time to visit The Zeitgeist Movement article nor its talk page since posting my last comment there several days ago, so I'm not currently informed on the status of the discussion(s). But last time I visited there, I was under the impression Avanu asked me a series of questions without prejudice, without pre-conceived notions, without bias, demonstrating a desire to remain open-minded, to grow, learn and expand his knowledge. (c) In this RT TV interview, starting at about 1:20, a TZM spokesperson tries to explain why TZM is not utopianism (re Andy's tagging as 'vague' in the article). [This is only one of several WP:RS for TZM not believing in utopia, I will try to provide you with some of the other sources if and when I have more time.] TZM believes social, economic and political systems need to be updated with advancements in science and technology. TZM believes that, for example, we have almost not updated our socio-economic system to accommodate the changes mandated by the industrial revolution, and especially the Second Industrial Revolution, which are able to provide abundance of food and all other necessities to the entire human population [when combined with (i) declaring all resources the common heritage of all of humanity, (ii) using these resources sustainably, (iii) shifting scientists and engineers away from designing weapons and bombs and other unneeded rubbish, (iv) shifting people away from working on unneeded garbage like Wall Street and advertising and other occupations that don't contribute to the betterment of human-kind, and instead providing everybody with free access to necessities, enabling all these people to work on beneficial scientific and technological inventions]. From the RT TV interview: "The current system ... [is ending] ... because of ... the natural evolution of technology ..." According to TZM, the updating of societal notions of economics, politics, culture etc. with advancements in science and technology is the antidote or cure to the metastasizing cancer (capitalism, the currency socio-economic system, massive debt and debt defaults, high unemployment, profit motive, ...) that Peter Joseph talks about in this TV interview. TZM is calling for technology (e.g. mass automation), due to its cost efficiency and other benefits, to replace the outdated, obsolete notion of wage labor and the profit motive, and instead people will work as much, or as little, as they want (see recent TZM Blog Post on 4-hr workdays as transition-step towards the TZM-proposed economy.) In this RT TV interview, TZM is calling for updating obsolete societal notions with advancements in technology; TZM is calling to use science to update and overcome what TZM calls "traditional barriers and traditionalized notions which we [mistakenly] think are empirical". In the RT TV interview, Peter Joseph is calling for updating our notions in order to "provide for the entire human species" "... you make the most efficient production system you can based on what technical knowledge allows us to do, scientific understanding ... to create material abundance ... no-one could ever be starving on this planet ... [money] interferes and limits our possibilities" later in the same interview TZM explains we need to update our notions of politics, which are currently based on a value system in which politicians (e.g. US Presidents) are elected based on how much they are liked by the public, not by their technical or scientific ability to help humanity. [By the way TZM calls for an equal, stateless and leaderless global society and are not calling for scientists and engineers to become our new rulers/ kings/ Fuhrers/ emperors/ Monarchs/ Sultans/ Pharoahs/ Shahs/ Caliphs/ Sheikhs/ Feudal Lords/ Divinity/ Gods. TZM is very similar to TTM, but this is a key difference between TZM and TTM.] Still later in the RT TV interview, beginning at about the 10:00 mark, "... utopia assumes finality - but there's no such thing as a finality. We're just trying to update society to present-day knowledge. Our notions of economics and politics are based on traditionalized ideas that go back hundreds if not thousands of years. These are completely outdated social structures that do not resemble any of our scientific ingenuity at this point in time, and our ability to care for the human population, which is what a society is supposed to do, right? ..." [[[Ijon Tichy]] note: here, as well as in other wp:RS, TZM is saying that in their proposed socioeconomic system, society's notions of economics and politics will not be static nor near-static, will not be immutable nor near-immutable, as they are now. On the contrary, society's notions will be dynamic — as is seen in organic life at large — harmony would (it is contended) result from an ever-changing adjustment and readjustment of equilibrium between the multitudes of forces and influences. This adjustment will be driven by advancements in science, technology, art etc., and this adjustment would be much easier to obtain as none of the special elite interests which are today dominating these socioeconomic notions would enjoy a special protection from the state, because society would be stateless, without hierarchy.] At the 14:20 mark of the RT TV interview: "... You can't say, 'Oh, this will never happen because of where we are today.' That's the wrong train of thought. If everyone thought like that, we wouldn't be anywhere." [Ijon Tichy note: This is identical to what the Wright Brothers, Ignaz Semmelseis etc. have said in trying to convince society-at-large, to convince people to expand their imaginative horizons.] [Additional RS on all of the above are available but I'm not likely to have the time in the near future to provide these RS.] ----------------- (d) Regarding WP:RS for TZM "elevating people's minds": Starting at 4:54 in the same RT TV interview: "The solution is a complete re-ordering ... you start to open your mind up ... put our minds to it ... " Lauren Lyster: "You are calling for something really untraditional ..." Peter Joseph: "... it's about appreciating the train of thought ... about how it can benefit society and create the best public health and safety, providing for as many people on the planet as possible ... you re-orient society ..." Also please see the artivist performances in the Zeitgeist Media Festival --- for only one example among several please see the songs by LCOB in this segment of the 2011 Zeitgeist Media Festival - note the phrase " elevate your mind " and "you must elevate your mind to a higher state of spiritual awareness to be aware of the re-emergent, symbiotic aspects of natural law". [Ijon note: the movement uses the terms 'emergent' and 'symbiotic' in other TZM-produced materials to denote adaptation of society's socio/ economic/ political/ cultural notions to advancements in science/ technology/ nature, i.e., a constant, on-going, dynamic process of updating - please see e.g. adaptive filters and adaptive systems ... ] Still later in the RT TV discussion, TZM explicitly discusses the importance of the 'train of thought' several more times. And still after that, Peter Joseph says "... a real revolution is a revolution of values, not a violent revolution to overthrow the state ..." And if editors feel additional RS are needed (in addition to this RT TV interview), several such RS exist to verify all of the above (and more). But regretfully I don't have the time right now to directly point you to these RS. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 19:13, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I hope you enjoyed writing your sermon, Tichy. I look forward immensely to not reading it. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:16, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to it being an unreliable source it has very little encyclopedic value. Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 23:45, 18 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Hu12 for the feedback. Indeed we have better alternatives available. Regards, IjonTichyIjonTichy (talk) 18:59, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

information Note:MediaWiki pages are for administration of the Wikipedia project and not intended to used as a fourm. Closing, thanks--Hu12 (talk) 04:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Peter Joseph performed as a musician/ multimedia artist, not as a speaker.
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Encyclopedia Mythica's official site: pantheon.org[edit]

Either whitelist the official link on the site's WP entry or WP:AFD the article. 83.233.11.80 (talk) 17:59, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. You can AFD it yourself if you want. It is not technically possible to whitelist the root domain of a blacklisted site. We need a specific page to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:10, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I see. Thank you anyways, 83.233.11.80 (talk) 18:30, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It would be most helpful if the site owner created an "About" page describing the site, its history, etc. at (for example) www.pantheon.org/about.html. That would be an appropriate page to whitelist for linking in the Encyclopedia Mythica article. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I found one: www.pantheon.org/information/about.html
Maybe you can trick the softare by adding a parameter to the root? Like this "www.pantheon.org/?nonsense_parameter=nonsense_string" which, if the software allows it, could be shortened to "www.pantheon.org/?"
83.233.11.80 (talk) 18:54, 16 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for finding that link. The article is currently under AFD, it's likely to survive, and after that I will white-list that 'about' page. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:07, 19 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
plus Added the 'about' link to the white-list. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

How to get your Hands on Amazing Bargains[edit]

Reason: Article to be used for Madbid Article creation. References much of the article and as far as I can see is a very credible source.JP22Wiki (talk) 10:58, 20 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note the following:
  • Nothing seems to exist in article space that justifies white listing.
  • Live links are a convenience, not a necessity, for referencing.
  • If a proposed article depends largely on one source, it likely won't be accepted anyway.
For those reasons, this request is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:39, 23 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Page specific article from batcave.net (a blacklisted web host, apparently)[edit]

Request for page-specific unblacklisting. On The Rudy and Gogo World Famous Cartoon Show page, there is a broken link for the Washington Post article about the show in the external links section. I'm just trying to add the new working link to the article which happens to be hosted at batcave.net. The new url for the article is tadghostal.batcave.net/rudygogoarticle.html --Mrblinky (talk) 01:57, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

no Declined. Why not use one of dozens of non-blacklisted alternatives for the same exact article, like http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1P2-844886.html ? ~Amatulić (talk) 04:04, 29 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

"Creating in Insult to Intelligence" by Melanie Phillips, the Spectator 29/4/09[edit]

www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2240970/posts

The original article has been deleted from the Spectator website (as has all Melanie Phillips articles). This article is an important reference because it illustrates the authors contraversial views on the theory of evolution. As a self proclaim polemic journalist, it is important that Melanic Phillips Wikipedia entry contains examples of all her contraversial views. This is the only site containing the original text of the article I have found. Many other articles refer to it, but have not been allowed as they have been judged to be "editorial opinion". --78.33.203.129 (talk) 14:07, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn/malformed/invalid/etc. requests[edit]

www.google.de/url?[edit]

I would like to have www.google.de/url? whitelisted. I often want to collect links from Google searches on a page in my userspace for later use and this triggers the spam filter and prevents me from saving the edit. My edits are done in good faith to improve the encyclopedia with these links. Often I don't have the time to create a correctly formatted reference in the article and thus want to quickly store a large number of such links in my userspace for later formatting and use in articles. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 12:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am not doubting about the good faith use of this, but this can be abused as a redirect site (and similar urls have been abused for this reason). This would enable the very basis of search engine optimisation. Please include your google-search pastes in <nowiki>-tags, or paste the results into an off-wiki document, and it will be fine. Or, click on the link and copy the real address of the page that google found for you. I am sorry, whitelisting this will result in problems, there is no use of it in Wikipedia, like, ever, per WP:ELNEVER. no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:55, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just as a bit more info: Say you are a spammer, who wants to link to hisspammysite.com. Google would not see those links from Wikipedia, since Wikipedia is not nofollow on links. And if people follow your link, you might make money from the person visiting your site, but it would not help your search results. However, if you would link to www.google.de/url?<codingforyoursite>, every click from Wikipedia gets counted by Google as a hit, improving your result in the ranking, ánd you might make money from people visiting your site. Having that loophole open is a source for problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:32, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this is probably not really necessary, since one click on the Google search result will bring to the proper url to copy/paste and that shouldn't take too much additional time. Thanks. -- Toshio Yamaguchi (tlk−ctb) 14:51, 21 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

ehow.com/how_4621475_almond-jelly-dessert.html[edit]

Hi, it's not a lot of information but it's informative and useful for the Almond jelly article, which currently requires sources, and which this page has a little bit of Chinese history on. Thanks Jenova20 16:14, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually like to retract this request now since i understand Ehow has been blocked for user-generated content and is therefore not reliable. Thanks Jenova20 09:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Taketomi Tourist Association[edit]

painusimastory.ti-da.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

  • painusimastory.ti-da.net

This is the offical website for the Taketomi, Okinawa Tourist Association. I would like to link to this site for the Iriomote cat article in regard to the conservation efforts of and mascot character created by the tourist association. I specifically wish to link to this page: painusimastory.ti-da.net/e2961086.html

I can't find the site listed on the blacklists, however when I attempt to add this link to the article it says that it's blocked. I assume a part of the domain is tripping the list. This link is also included on the corresponding Japanese article (which is rated as a Good article), so I'm somewhat confused. Thanks for your help. purplepumpkins (talk) 12:01, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Just a comment: The domain ti-da.net is blacklisted globally on meta, not just on the English Wikipedia. Therefore if it were removed from the Japanese Wikipedia article, it could not be added back in.
The request is reasonable and I would not object if any admin agrees to it. However, when I go to that site, it describes itself as a blog, not the official web site. I guess it's an official blog, although I am somewhat bothered by trivia from a seemingly non-notable tourist blog being used as a reference in a science article. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:13, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see your concern over the usage of the link in a science article. The specific link was to be used under the Relationship with humans->Mascot character section, in which the link would have relevance (though I suppose it's up for debate as to if the section of the article itself has relevance).
Upon further thought and reading through the current reference to that section, the present citation already covers all the bases. With that and your misgivings in mind, I'd say it wouldn't be a loss to close this request and just keep the URL blocked. purplepumpkins (talk) 06:14, 15 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Request withdrawn--Hu12 (talk) 02:01, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Online-Scratch-Card[edit]

online-scratch-card.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

I had a previous request HERE to remove a blocked site to include as a source for Online scratch card. Since that time, I cited the source without using a clickable link based on a recommendation on the admin notice board HERE. I have since been told that this would be the proper forum to discuss this request. I am looking NOT for the entire site to be unblocked, but simple the URL to the article to be unblocked. The site looks like it was used under the "external link" section months ago by someone who was trying to get traffic to the site. There was no affiliate link tied to it so I am unsure if it was egregious or just someone not understanding the criteria to have their site placed there. Regardless, I would request that the link to the article that I cited (www.online-scratch-card.com/news/2011/11/camelot-defends-against-false-claims-minors-gambling-854) be unblocked so that you can click through to the cited page. Let me be clear that I am not requesting the entire site be unblocked, just this specific link. Thanks again for your consideration. --Morning277 (talk) 15:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I am just following up on the above referenced request. If there is additional information that you need in order to evaluate this request, please let me know. Thank you in advance. --Morning277 (talk) 14:06, 21 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does not seem to me to be a reliable source. I am minded to deny this request but will leave it for a short period in case I can be convinced otherwise. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for addressing this. There are 2 reasons why I continued this request. The first is to go through the process as I have learned more about different Wikipedia processes. The second is that the reference, while it may not seem to be a reliable source, it is the best source available for the topic. When you search for information on online scratch cards, you get thousands of websites that are either affiliate sites trying to get you to play or actual gaming sites which I will never site on Wikipedia. The link that I want unblocked is to an article on a site that reviews online scratch card sites. While it is more than likely an affiliate site, the specific link that I want to site speaks to controversies with online scratch cards and not an attempt to refer someone to online scratch cards. The reason I changed my request to the specific link and not the entire site is because I now believe that unblocking the entire site could be suicide. You can see from the history of the link that the site spammed Wikipedia on different occasions. If it is completely unblocked it is likely that this will happen again. However, I believe that the link by itself will work for a specific issue about the topic within a single article. Thanks in advance for your consideration. --Morning277 (talk) 13:31, 22 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just checking to see if there is any progress on evaluating my follow-up response. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 19:44, 1 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please let me know if there is additional information needed to process this request. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 15:00, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I see more reliable sources that might serve the same purpose you intend for this link:
Why not use one of those? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:33, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am familiar with the policy but did not find the sources that you pointed out or I would have definitely used them. Thanks for addressing this and you can withdraw my request. Thanks. --Morning277 (talk) 18:43, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and added the Daily UK source as it looks the most reliable. --Morning277 (talk) 18:45, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Request withdrawn. Glad to help. Finding those sources turned out to be pretty easy. I just Googled for a quotation that appeared in the source you originally found. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:49, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

travelkashmir.net[edit]

travelkashmir.net: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

This site was blocked last due to my negligence last year. This website is actually the new version of vKashmir.com who's domain is no longer in use & has expired in last month. This is a website regarding Kashmir one of the beautiful destination in Asia. I would appreciate you "admin" can take my request in to consideration and remove it from blacklisted group.

Today i tried to replace the vKashmir.com domain link with travelKashmir.net on one of the wiki pages and was not able to do it as it was blacklisted.

It is absolutely at your disposal to remove it or keep it as blacklisted. I am just requesting almost after 1 year to remove it from black list.

regards

no Declined due to invalid request. This page is for white-listing specific URLs for use in specific articles, if a website is otherwise blacklisted. The place to request delisting is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, although I doubt a removal request will get much traction there for reasons described at WP:ELNO and WP:NOTTRAVEL. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2012/09&oldid=1056836691"