MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:08, 17 November 2009

The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following:

The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|326308049#section_name}}

Note that requests from new or unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: Use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

Indicators
Request completed:
Done	{{Done}}
Stale	{{StaleIP}}
Request withdrawn	{{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

This section is for proposing that a website be whitelisted; add new entries at the bottom of this section. Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate Indicator then archived.

Instructions to requesters:

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.
Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.
Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

If the above information is not provided expect your request to be declined.

www.deathcamps.org

The site is linked in many articles.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC) www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/obrawalde_de.html Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) There was a dispute between the mentioned site and www.death-camps.org which probably doesn't exist any more.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ugly mess it is;

Intellectual property dispute
Deathcamps
Legal threats, counterfeit websites, oh my!
Deathcamps nonsense
Blacklisted per OTRS ticket#2007031910009401

More input by the other admins is needed before anything is done here.--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Several articles quote the site both directly (Gerstein Report) or pretending they don't (Hermann Höfle, Wikipeta!). The same for German Wikipedia. Either the site is totally wrong so all links should be replaced or it's O.K. . Now it's at the same time wrong and O.K.. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly do you want done? Do you want the site removed from the blacklist entirely (in which case you're at the wrong page) or do you want one or a few links permitted (in which case please specify the exact URIs)? Stifle (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm about to post an article which would benefit from this link. Examiner.com is banned because it superficially appears reliable but is in fact a "citizen journalism" site with very limited editorial oversight. However, this particular link is to an article by Rene Najera, who is an epidemiologist with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and I want to cite him on a topic of epidemiology. In fact, all I really want to do is cite his citation of a public records database. EvanHarper (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Examiner.com:

Has no editorial oversight
Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
Offers incentives to writers to increase page views

Therefore I am of the opinion that this request should be declined, and will duly decline it in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Amazon is presumably banned as an online bookshop, and most links would therefore be merely advertising. The unblock for this specific page, concerning the video of the Running Blind TV series, is to verify the high price at which the now extremely rare videos change hands. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We shouldn't be citing that page as it's a primary source (and it could change in the morning anyway). Instead, cite a reliable source which has written about it. At worst, cite an Amazon page that is not an affiliate link (which should not be blocked). Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dom3.servegame.com/wiki/

(please unblock this namespace)

This site is a (media)wiki about the game Dominions3 created from fans of the game. See [official dom3 forum entry]

Seeing the Link from the wikipedia article to the dom3 wiki is very important for everyone interested at the dom3 game. --Horst_F_JENS (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fansites are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. It would seem to also fail Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines also. Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and content is self-published, which includes open wikis.--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

sound extremly stupid to me. with the same arguing, the existing links of the dom3 article (pointing to chinese fan-wiki, strategywiki etc.) should all be deleted and if i understand it right wikipedia articles should also do not link to wikipedia itself (being an open wiki with questionable editing). please, let me modify the dom3 article (i started it and it was one of the reasons to invest time into wikipeda) so that it be useful for it readers. the dom3 "fan" wiki i want to link to is "the" official dom3 wiki right now, read press release form game's publisher http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44186 for more information. being forced to have to beg for a simple thing like posting an external link on an article that would not exist without me is a HUGE dissappointment and shows how a good idea (wikipedia) can go downhill.

Approved Requests

Denied Requests

lulu.com

Hello I want to have www.lulu.com, which is a book site to be removed from the forbidden list because I need to reference that for notability for a wikipedia page I am doing on Luis Durani and it wil ladd credence to his personality and needed for his proof that he wrote teh book.

This section is to request pages be blocked. Please file your request in the correct section. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

--Associatedcontent should be added to the white list because it is a great reference website, including many topics which aren't readily available anywhere else.

Associatedcontent.com:

Exercises no editorial control over articles
Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
Offers authors monetary incentives to increase pageviews

Denied Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

This section is for requests to remove sites from the whitelist. Removed sites will be blocked again (unless they have also been removed from the blacklist). Completed requests will be archived

Troubleshooting and problems

This section is for comments related to problems with the whitelist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being allowed). This is not the section to request that an entry be listed or unlisted (see above). Completed requests will be archived

Discussion

This section is for discussion about this talk page itself. Requests should not be added here.

This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other projects with active whitelists

I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. --A. B. ^(talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 52: / Line 52: @@
 --[[User:Horst F JENS|Horst_F_JENS]] ([[User talk:Horst F JENS|talk]]) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
 :Fansites are a [[Wp:el#Links_normally_to_be_avoided|Link normally to be avoided]] and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our [[WP:EL|External Links policy]]. It would seem to also fail [[WP:V|Verifiability]] and [[WP:RS|Reliable Source]] guidelines also. Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has '''no''' editorial oversight (see [[WP:RS]]) and content is [[WP:V#Self-published sources (online and paper)|self-published]], which <u>includes</u> open [[wiki]]s.--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
+::sound extremly stupid to me. with the same arguing, the existing links of the dom3 article (pointing to chinese fan-wiki, strategywiki etc.) should all be deleted and if i understand it right wikipedia articles should also do not link to wikipedia itself (being an open wiki with questionable editing). please, let me modify the dom3 article (i started it and it was one of the reasons to invest time into wikipeda) so that it be useful for it readers. the dom3 "fan" wiki i want to link to is "the" official dom3 wiki right now, read press release form game's publisher http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44186 for more information. being forced to have to beg for a simple thing like posting an external link on an article that would not exist without me is a HUGE dissappointment and shows how a good idea (wikipedia) can go downhill.
 ==Approved Requests==

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards