Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Anruari (talk | contribs)
23 edits
Line 150: Line 150:


[[User:Anruari|Anruari]] ([[User talk:Anruari|talk]]) 12:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
[[User:Anruari|Anruari]] ([[User talk:Anruari|talk]]) 12:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
=== thomaschen.freewebspace.com ===
I don't see any spam here.
This provides source material for articles such as [[Chinese swords]], [[Jian]], and [[Dao (sword)]].
thomaschen.freewebspace.com/custom4.html, ...custom2.html, etc.
[[User:Asoer|Asoer]] ([[User talk:Asoer|talk]]) 12:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)


==Approved requests==
==Approved requests==

Revision as of 12:40, 23 September 2011

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    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:

    1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
    2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
    3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
    4. 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|452016538#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:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}


    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    aerobaticteams.net/blue-angels-history.html

    There is a much more information about Blue Angels then this article. Wikipedia article Blue Angels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.65.123 (talk • contribs)

    Well, we generally expand the Wikipedia article then, we are writing an encyclopedia here. And I do note, that you are in the same range of the editors who were actually spamming this link on our Wikimedia projects. I don't see any compelling reason for now to whitelist this, hence no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy.
    So includes evading of blacklist, multiple IP-ranges spamming, etc. etc. I would really suggest you read through WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and more, and the whole lot before even considering to re-request. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, it is not our primary goal to have links to all sites suitable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/13178/interview-the-kings-speech-director-tom-hooper-colin-firth-masterful-studder

    The HollywoodChicago.com website was blacklisted due to the owner spamming film articles with unnotable review links. The above link is to an interview which is being used to support information in the Tom Hooper (director) article. Currently the only way to access it from Wikipedia is through a Webcite link, but I would like an active link to the original article to be in place. It could also prove useful for inclusion in the The King's Speech article. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stuffed with ads and tracking cookies/links, dubious reliability; I am minded to decline but will leave open for a week or so and may be persuaded to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No comment on the reliability, but it is a substantial interview. I tried viewing without AdBlock Plus, and the result has enough gimmickry to irritate, but nothing I found obnoxious. While the Webcite copy the article links to is still disfigured by no-brow photographs at the foot, it's cleaner and less irritating than the original. How (or in which browser) is the original superior? -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't said that the original is superior, just that it looks suspicious to cite a web interview without including a full link to the the original article. Bradley0110 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A little odd, perhaps; but suspicious? If there are two alternatives, and one (WebCite) works as is, whereas the other (the original) has more advertising, isn't superior, and would require editing of files here, can't we just go with the former? -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it wouldn't harm the article at a possible future FAC, then yes (although the information being supported in the citation may be repeated in future reliable sources, so it could be supplanted then). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're very welcome to link here in any future FAC discussion; plus you'd be welcome to notify me of any difficulty. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/deathnoe.html

    Note: the URL above redirects to wichm.home.xs4all.nl/deathnoe.html
    If there are no copyright problems with the content on that site, then I see no problem whitelisting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/auto-review-in-national/retro-car-revew-1979-1982-fiat-strada-fiat-s-end-of-the-road

    Pc13 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did. I also noticed there are common requests for specific articles inside Examiner.com. I find nothing objectionable about this historical perspective article in particular. The only thing I need to do is cite dates, which are factual, not opinion. --Pc13 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/concert-in-new-york/interview-scott-russo-of-unwritten-law-explains-departure-of-longtime-members

    • 1. The URL is to an interview with the singer (and now only remaining original member) of the band Unwritten Law, explaining the departure of 2 of the band's longtime members. I'm not familiar with why the site (examiner.com) is blacklisted, but AFAIK interviews should be considered reliable because they are direct quotes from the primary source (the interviewee). In any case I'm simply trying to compile sources at Talk:Unwritten Law#Sources for use later, and this interview is a very useful source in referencing an important recent event in the band's history (the quitting of 2 longtime, primary members) and gives a side of the story as given by the singer that the other sources I've found don't give. In order to include quotes from the singer relating to the incident, I need to cite this URL.
    • 2. Unwritten Law
    • 3. examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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

    --IllaZilla (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com is blacklisted because it's what WP has termed a self-written, commission-paying site. IFF a published "interview" really contains the accurate (if abridged) transcription of an actual interview, then yes, it gives us direct quotes from the primary source. But why should this particular "interview" be taken seriously? (NB I'm not saying that it shouldn't; I'm just asking.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be taken less seriously than any other interview? If you look at it, it consists simply of questions from the interviewer, followed by long responses from the interviewee. Pretty straightforward. The reason this particular interview is significant (aka a reason to take it seriously) is that it's the only source I have been able to find where the frontman of the band gives his explanation for the departure of 2 longtime members of the band, which resulted from a physical altercation with him. The 2 departing members issued statements that have been re-printed by other reliable sources, but the frontman hasn't given his side of the story, as far as I can find, except for in this interview. As this is an event of no small significance to Unwritten Law as a band (the loss of half the band members—one of whom was a founding member who had been in the band for 20 years, the other of whom had been in the band for 13 years—due to a physical altercation with the frontman), I feel it's important to cover both parties' sides of the story when discussing the event in an encyclopedia (eg. "The 2 departing members said this, while the frontman said this"). To do that I need to cite both parties, which is why I need the interview. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ciquestudios.com/hurricaneclimate/2011/07/24/kam-biu-liu-paleotempestology-of-the-west-coast-of-mexico-new-proxy-records-of-eastern-north-pacific-hurricane-activities/

    Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/mma-in-paterson/amanda-nunes-expected-to-fight-september-10th

    You don't see a conflict of interest here, with citing your own work on a site that pays you for directing traffic to articles you write? If I happen to have a conversation with someone who has a bio on Wikipedia, does that mean I get to write it up on examiner.com and cite it? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied. MER-C 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.reflectionsindia.org/article.php?nav=11

    --Profchakraborty iitkanpur (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.ehow.com/about_5717578_prescription-bottles-orange_.html

    The future article Prescription bottle will benefit this. I have found a reliable article on eHow.com about the color of the prescription bottles. This site should be whitelisted because it is an article with reliable sources and references. I would like to whitelist: www.ehow.com/about_5717578_prescription-bottles-orange_.html
    ehow.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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 --JC Rules! (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about citing the sources in the ehow article directly instead? MER-C 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. --JC Rules! (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ehow.com

    Please bear with me iif this is imperfectly done; I’m still learning how exactly this works.

    1. Ehow.com in general should be unblocked because it is a technical site; However, in the interim I am specifically requesting ehow.com/info_8143128_difference-between-grapeshot-canister.html be unblocked as it relates to grape shot and the development of chain shot.
    2. Grape and Chain Shot and article referencing them; Currently the MythBusters] talk page is in discussions on the matter. However, I will also be checking both the Grape and Chain Shot pages to see what they show.
    3. ehow.com/info_8143128_difference-between-grapeshot-canister.html A. J. REDDSON

    www.typemock.com

    Typemock is a start-up company that makes unit testing and mock object software development tools. They have been featured in SDTimes, Dr. Dobbs, and other software development media and also are well known in the development community. See, for example, http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/231000839, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=4999622, http://mashable.com/2011/06/09/armadillo/ (Armadillo was developed by Typemock), and is discused among software developers (see: http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2008/01/19/typemock-isn-t-too-powerful-and-quot-designing-for-testability-quot-is-much-more-than-merely-mocking-anyway/, http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2008/03/16/tdd-introduction-to-typemock-isolator.aspx, http://www.mcdev.za.net/2011/06/getting-started-with-typemock-isolator-in-vs2010/, etc.)

    1. Typemock is relevant for articles like mock object, unit testing, and list of unit testing frameworks

    Amechad (talk)


    a page about the Carbfix Project

    I wanted to add a link to this page carbon.energy-business-review.com/news/carbfix-project-to-start-carbon-injection-in-next-month-090911 as a cite note for the CarbFix article stub that I've just started - not sure why this site has been blacklisted but it seems a bit inconvenient {{LinkSummary|carbon.energy-business-review.com}} I could probably use the carbfix's own site for this reference but that seems worse. If I get some spare time I might go look for an alternate source. EdwardLane (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole of -business-review.com was a problem, and it has been spammed quite often, quick search:
    The whole of that was therefore blacklisted. Alternative source may be good, but otherwise no objection against whitelinking this specific link for this use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    found exactly the same article on another site - wonder if that's blacklisted too (well I shall see) :) EdwardLane (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined as moot: [1]. MER-C 04:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A page from AceShowbiz

    I was looking for a reference where the 13th Empire Awards were held and aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00014593.html was the only one I could find.--Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A page from Opus - Info

    I feel it would be helpful to whitelist the following page:

    www.opus-info.org/index.php?title=Preces

    While I can understand that the main web-site could be considered a propaganda site, the specific page shows a scan of a prayer which is being discussed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preces_(Opus_Dei)


    An argument has arisen in the discussion on that page about the appropriateness of reproducing the whole prayer on wikipedia, and I feel that providing a link to an external website which displayes it could be a reasonable compromise.

    Link Summary: opus-info.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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


    Anruari (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    thomaschen.freewebspace.com

    I don't see any spam here. This provides source material for articles such as Chinese swords, Jian, and Dao (sword). thomaschen.freewebspace.com/custom4.html, ...custom2.html, etc. Asoer (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    www.helium.com/users/490158

    helium.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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

    www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/picture-perfect--2/picture-perfect-rob-hornstra

    vbs.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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 not heard of the vbs.tv website/enterprise until an hour or so ago and know no more about it than what is written in the article about it or is visible on the single page there that's of interest to me. I presume that vbs.tv (in general) was blacklisted here for a good reason and am not challenging this. However, I want to add the following

    * "[http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/picture-perfect--2/picture-perfect-rob-hornstra Picture Perfect: Rob Hornstra]". Sixteen-minute [[VBS.tv]] video of Hornstra talking about his work and photographing in Sochi.

    to the list of external links at the foot of Rob Hornstra. The video is well made and (at least for readers interested in documentary photography) unusually interesting. The embedded video certainly does not spam anything and the page in which it is embedded does not noticeably spam anything either. Since I am not using Windows I have no Windows "virus protection" software running and do not know if the page has any malware payload, but I cannot think of any other possible drawback to the link.

    Please click on this particular vbs.tv link and view the result with an open mind.

    Again, while this particular video is worthwhile, I am (at this point) indifferent about the acceptability of the vbs.tv website. I'm therefore open to the idea of adding a link to the same video as embedded in some other site, one to which Wikipedia has no objection (and about which there are no copyright questions). Suggestions are welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Further reading (which I should have done in the first place, of course) reveals that vbs.tv is blacklisted because WP has been spammed with links to it. Because (i) I am requesting the addition of a single link to a single article, and (ii) I have made other edits to the same page, this shouldn't be an issue here. I note that A. B. wrote here (in 2008) that If an established, high volume editor requests whitelisting of a specific page that can serve as a reliable source for use in a citation, we can reconsider. "If" needn't imply "IFF", but all the same: (i) I am "established", and (ii) my "volume" is high; but (iii) I do not want to source anything to this video, because as a reader I am irritated to find an interesting assertion "sourced" to a video, which may or may not play on the computer I happen to be using, and which anyway won't have a text search facility. If you like, I could extend Since graduation Hornstra has combined editorial work for newspapers and magazines with more personal, longer-term documentary work in the Netherlands, Iceland, and the former Soviet Union by saying something about how he hopes to spend 10 to 15 years on Russia and thereafter to move elsewhere, and source the addition to the video; or I could add that the lengthy project about Sochi was Van Bruggen's idea rather than his own; or that he uses a medium-format camera (a Mamiya 7, surely); or that the current subproject within the Sochi project is on amateur lounge singers. Would this help? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC) ... Somewhat altered Hoary (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PPS Yes, I am an admin; and I read at the top Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist (and below You're a sysop, you don't need to ask). However, I'm very wary of using my superpowers to advance my priorities in editing, plus I've previously got in a tangle here, and although that ended up pretty well for all concerned, I'm probably not the most popular admin hereabouts. And so I claim no admin-specific privilege. Please deal with my request on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, thank you very much! -- Hoary (talk) 10:01, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    norm.org

    norm.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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 tried to add an external link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran%27s_Race_Relations - which refers to the organisation, but it was flagged as a blacklisted site. This article also refers to NORM and could benefit from a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

    I'm not sure why this site is blacklisted? It seems relevant to anyone wondering about this practice. The organisation is mentioned and described, but links to its official site are not allowed. NORM-UK actually has its own wikipedia page, but the original NORM is banned from Wikipedia? Omgplz (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      • I'll try and have a look at this later, when I have access to COIBot. Just as a note, it looks like Foreskin restoration is already linking to the homepage of this organisation, and you mention as well 'which refers to the organisation'. Per WP:EL, these links are not direct on the 2 pages where you mention it. Where mentioned, the mention should be a wikilink to the subject page (even if it does not exist), we do not externally link for all organisations etc. which are mentioned on a page. I agree, that on the page on the subject (when it exists) a link to a homepage should be allowed. I'll look further later (but nothing against removal). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could not really find anything, no objection. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • minus Removed Stifle (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/a-recession-indicator-thats-hard-to-miss

    I have no idea how this site got blacklisted, it even has it's own article: MoneyWeek that includes an external link to the site. It seems to be a legitimate source of news. I need it for Kingdom Tower (Jeddah). Thanks. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It looks like it was part of a spam campaign, many domains and so on (if you follow the link 'tracked' in the template, you will be pointed to some discussions and users). I'll whitelist this one. plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I'm sure some of that site is spam and should be blocked but that link leads to a legitimate article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vietvisiontravel.com

    Thanks for taking a look at this .. Sharktopus talk 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks so much -- just this one page would be all I want: www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911 Sharktopus talk 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/twin-galaxies-and-the-golden-domes

    A portion of this video includes footage of a building I am writing about. (Currently at User:Will Beback/Sandbox 2, soon to be at Golden Domes.) While there is other video of it around, this is the only website which hosts a video which hasn't been created by others (i.e. copyvios). It's my understanding that the site has been blacklisted because of repeated spam efforts, and obviously this is not part of that. It would not be a used as a source, but as a useful external link.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks.   Will Beback  talk  08:24, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    hubpages.com/hub/Tigers-in-Texas

    Mark Hurd (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com/product/file-download/retreat-from-reality/13838213

    www.examiner.com/events-in-los-angeles/a-rae-of-sunshine-patricia-rae-beams-onto-the-big-screen-our-hearts

    Based in Los Angeles, Mona Elyafi has been writing entertainment news and personality profiles since 1992. She currently serves as the LA correspondent for Diva Fashion Magazine reporting on the latest Hollywood trends and covering celebrity interviews (Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry and Kimora Lee Simmons). Her articles have also appeared in The Washington Square News, Studio City Magazine & Salt Lake City Tribune. Elyafi holds a Master of Arts in journalism from New York University.
    The author does not appear to be a user who one day just logged onto The Examiner and made the article, and seems to have made the article with a reasonable level of professionalism. Her credentials as an entertainment journalist also seem to be backed up here and here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the author seems professional, and the simple reason for this is that she is a professional publicist. Her articles may indeed appear in the infotainment sources that she names, but Google News hasn't heard of her. As for the two sources you give for her "credentials as an entertainment journalist", one is mere self-promotion and the other is for her credentials as a publicist, not a journalist. I realize that in the netherworld of C-list celebrity much of "journalism" is mere recycled PR puff; but even if she did have some PR-unrelated journalism credential, her blazingly obvious PR motivation would render her journalism unusable for encyclopedic purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done The writer is not a journalist but a generator of PR. -- Hoary (talk) 11:14, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    smilelist.xf.cz

    Niusereset (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already answered on frwiki. Regards — Arkanosis ✉ 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The link in the header is different to the linksummary provided. Please can you clarify? Stifle (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake... I was comunicating on fr.wiki and forgot to look again here. And to be honest... I don't understand to the question.
    Niusereset (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your header requests unblocking of smilelist.xf.cz. Under number 3, you write webzdarma.cz. Which website are you looking for unblocking? Stifle (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com/product/paperback/productivity/16516142/

    Generally it is possible to use {{Cite book}} with this (without a url to the location on lulu.com). Would that be a solution here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    For this I'd say,  Not done. There isn't any requirement to have a link to a book in a citation. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:07, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.windows8update.com

    • 1. windows8update.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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
    • 2. Windows_8
    • 3. I would like to request that my site be removed from the blacklist. It's a valuable and trusted Windows 8 resource that's over 2 years old with over 650 posts and over 1200 comments. It has completely unique content and at this point is a reputable source of Windows 8 information. It has more than 640,000 monthly pageviews and over 200,000 unique monthly visitors and a Newsletter audience of 35,000 readers. It's being blacklisted as part of the Nnigma network but has never engaged in any spam like activities of any kind. To be clear, I am not necessarily trying to add it to that Wikipedia Windows 8 page, I would just like it white listed in case any admin or third party would like to add any of my pages in the future. Almost all my competitors are listed and referenced for Windows 8. They are blogs similar to mine - Windows8news. Windows8beta. Windows8center. etc etc Thanks for your consideration. Ammalgam (talk) 10:58, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. We don't whitelist pages in anticipation of constructive uses. If an established editor asks for whitelisting and demonstrates that including links to your website is beneficial to the encyclopedia, the request will be considered favorably. We also do not whitelist entire domains, especially at the request of site owners. MER-C 07:13, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd like to see what is meant with "Almost all my competitors are listed and referenced for Windows 8". I see 3 microsoft external links, the rest are references. Are so many of these references blogs?? Hmm. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi again, in the references section for Windows 8, numbers 4, 5, 9, 11, 13,14, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 31 are blogs. I am defining blogs as web magazines run primarily by one person with a point of view - similar to mine. If there is an effort to restrict or remove blogs, why so many as references here? If those are valid, surely a blog with my statistics is just as valid. As for not whitelisting domains "in anticipation of constructive uses", I would then respectfully ask to be removed from the blacklist as a thorough examination of my site will show that it adds as much value if not more than the sites I have referenced above. Or would you be open to removing the sites above in order to show some consistency with your policy? P.S. 3 of the aforementioned reference sites are the sites I referred to in my original request - Windows8news. Windows8beta. Windows8center. Regards Ammalgam (talk) 07:40, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Several of those references you listed should be removed, in my opinion. Some (like #4) are redundant and appear to be there only so the blog can have a link on Wikipedia. If you want, go ahead and clean them out. Some unique items like information about leaks could be kept but better sources should be found. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:33, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, thanks for the responses. Regarding the edits to the references, I will defer to the admins reading this thread. I just realized that I may be asking the wrong questions here. Maybe I am not trying to get whitelisted as much as to get off the blacklist? I really don't care if my site is listed on Wikipedia, I just don't want my site blacklisted for the reasons stated above. Is this the right section to be appealing to? If not, could an admin help me out here? Thanks Ammalgam (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is to request whitelisting of individual pages of sites that are blacklisted, not for requesting removal from the blacklist. Those requests should be posted at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals.
    You may also want to look at the evidence that led to the listing of your site.
    However, I recommend you don't try to ask for removal. I would decline the request, as would any other admin. Sites are never removed from the blacklist at the request of the site owner, unless a clear and obvious error occurred (such as in collateral damage, when a wildcard expression in the blacklist unintentionally blocking a site). When a trusted, high-volume editor sees a need to add a link to your site and makes a request, then the request is considered.
    Your efforts would be better spent cleaning out the linkspam in the Windows 8 article. You may also propose on the article talk page that a link to your site be added as a reference, and if someone else agrees, that person can post a request here for a specific page to be whitelisted. You have a conflict of interest, so you should not add your links or make whitelisting requests yourself. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll save you some time; if you proposed removing it from the blacklist, I would mark it no Declined. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:38, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi again, that's fine. Thanks for the information ~Amatulić. You were very responsive and full of information. I will end it here. Admin Ohnoitsjamie, no need to be an asshole. This is wikipedia, you dont need to be malicious in your response tone. Message received. Ammalgam (talk) 16:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.petitiononline.com/johndoe/

    • 1. petitiononline.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • 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
    • 2. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Doe_(TV_series)
    • 3. In my searches through the internet of the subject of the John Doe tv series, I've found that most people that are searching the show are trying to find out if there's some sort of continuation: either a second tv season, plans for a movie, or even plans for a book series or comic series. Fans want to know what they can do to bring the show back. I believe this link is relevant because it shows that there are already near 30000 fans who have signed the petition, and as wikipedia is a high volume website, the fans that come here to look at the article wondering what they can do to encourage further development of John Doe will be pleased to have this link. If they come to the wikipedia page, honestly this link is probably the main piece of information they're looking for.
     Not done See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#Petitions. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:12, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    www.infibeam.com

    Infibeam.com should be unblocked because it is a major Indian ecommerce portal, which was blocked few years back on account of spamming. It was a mistake by some former employees and the company would be more responsible in linking its URL only to places which are relevant and would serve the purpose for which Wikipedia works. This is a request not to block the usage of the URL because of mistakes done 2-3 years back and add it to the whitelist. The site now also has a Wikipedia Page which is an effort to inform the readers about the Indian ecommerce market.

    • Not unblocking the whole domain, but if there is an index or about page that you can specify I can whitelist that. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please let me know why the whole domain cannot be unblocked so that if possible, I can take adequate steps to resolve the problem. I would request to unblock the home page www.infibeam.com and the About us page www.infibeam.com/static/help/about-us.html Articleonline (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock so you "can take adequate steps to resolve the problem"? What is there to resolve? The site has been massively spammed on Wikipedia. Are you associated with that site? Please be aware that we do not accept unblock requests from a domain owner, employees, or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests that the whole domain be unblocked, we would consider it.
    The home page exists purely to sell products. Wikipedia is not a portal to merchant sites. If you want to include a link in an article about the company, then the "about" page should be sufficient for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to unblock www.infibeam.com/static/help/about-us.html, but that will be all. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done on reflection, seems like a driveby request. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.helium.com/items/1672168-adjule-mystery-dog-of-africa

    Hi! I would need this reference for the List of cryptids page, under Adjule. Thanks. Againme (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The author says next to nothing about the subject. He says Adjule are supposed to be canines that live in North Africa. Apparently, they wander around various parts of the Sahara Desert. (My emphases.) Supposed by whom? Apparent to whom? He doesn't say. He doesn't cite any source whatever for anything whatever. The page about him www.helium.com/users/197147 doesn't claim any particular expertise in ethnozoology, zoology, ethnography, anthropology, Africa, or anything else that's putatively relevant (let alone any way to verify such a claim); he's merely a guy who likes to write for helium.com. Quite aside from the fact that the domain is blacklisted, this page you want to use as a "reference" seems to me a textbook case of what an encyclopedia should not bother to mention, let alone cite. Or do I misunderstand? -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. MER-C 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fibre2fashion.com/news/technology-textiles/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=71696

    The article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_to_garment_printing will benefit from this, as it does not currently cite enough references. This site should be whitelisted because it includes industry news from a verifiable third-party source. I would like to whitelist www.fibre2fashion.com/news/technology-textiles/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=71696
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamarweiss (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a press release, which you can find on other websites like this one. no Declined. MER-C 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    melbel.hubpages.com/hub/Unicru

    --warchildbosnia 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you think this page is a reliable source? Have you read the common requests? MER-C 13:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a freelance writer going to school for computer science. I love the Ruby programming language, but am now learning Perl. My writing is what helps me pay for college, so feel free to backlink, tweet, and facebook like my hubs.

    — melbel.hubpages.com
    Author clearly has no authority in this area, so this is not a reliable source. Also, no response. no Declined. MER-C 02:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

    www.examiner.com/fairies-in-national/interview-with-butch-hartman-on-the-fairly-oddparents

    I am trying to add this note with its corresponding ref, added below, for the Production section of the article A Fairly Odd Movie: Grow Up, Timmy Turner!. This is so far the only interview with Butch Hartman, creator of the series and the movie.

    {{quote|In The Examiner's interview with creator Butch Hartman, the movie was inspired by Hartman's motive to "take the series in a new direction" by doing "a live action/CGI combo movie".[1]

    89119 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    web.archive.org on otherwise-dead link www.examiner.com/x-23511-Portland-Science-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Local-inventor-plans-Launch-Loop-to-gratly-reduce-cost--of-space-travel

    I was directed here when I was tried to use the above Wayback Machine link in Keith Lofstrom, an article that seemed to need more third-party reliable sources. The specific problem was with examiner.com, which I now see is mentioned under the Common Requests category. The author of this article, Charles Radley, appears (from the photo) to be same Charles Radley listed here: http://visible.me/charlesradley1958438, and here http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=269275&authType=name&authToken=0WPl&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore with personal and professional interests, and geographic location, strongly overlapping the subject of the article. So it's not impossible that there's a personal connection between Radley and Lofstrom. On the other hand, Lofstrom's listed affiliations check out, possibly making him a reasonably reliable source on the subject. I haven't checked all of Radley's social networks, but despite Radley having a few dozen connections on Google Plus, Lofstrom is not one of them. Yakushima (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn requests, and requests that are malformed, invalid, or otherwise past relevance

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    www.pornhub.com

    I would like to remove http://www.pornhub.com/ from this whitelist. I was making sure what the site was, and, almost being scarred for life, the site was pornographic. I would like this site, and all other pages associated with this, taken off the whitelist and reblocked.--JC Rules! (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    whitelisting not working (or more likely screwed up)

    I'm rather new here, but recently I did successfully add a helium.com page to the whitelist. The second time, not so lucky. I attempted to add

    I'm sorry that it took so long, but yes you can now link to [http://www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911/ this particular page] within vietvisiontravel.com. (Note the final slash: you specified the address without it, but this redirects to the version with it, and I therefore whitelisted the latter.) -- ~~~~

    to the user page of the person who'd made the request back in July, but it didn't take, because vietvisiontravel.com is blacklisted. Well yes it is, but I thought I'd whitelisted this particular page minutes earlier. ¶ Sorry if I screwed something up. -- Hoary (talk) 10:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This should work: http://www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911/ --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It was the \b at the end, Hoary. \b denotes the 'end or beginning of a word' .. on the left you had \/ (escaping a /), so there should be a 'word' at the right of the \b .. but that was not there. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Duh! Sorry! -- Hoary (talk) 11:07, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No problem, nothing really broke, it just did not work. <the rest of this post removed per WP:BEANS>. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    How does this discussion page work, anyway?

    Stifle writes above: only a few sysops actually do anything here, myself being the most active one by some margin. I sympathize. I might even be willing to help out. But I'm baffled by the process, and I'd guess that I'm not alone in my bafflement. Is the red-cross icon the same as the circle-with-a-minus icon? Is "not done" the same as "declined"/"denied"? If I, as an admin who's uninvolved in a given problematic website and the relevant articles here (and also one with next to no experience in white/blacklisting), find that a particular request is either a blazingly obvious yes or a blazingly obvious no, can/should I announce the (not just my) verdict with the relevant icon and, if it's agreement, whitelist the particular page(s)/site? Are the requests near the top of this page that have what appear to be definitive verdicts appended to them still at the top (a) because nobody's had time to move them downwards, or (b) because the verdicts actually aren't definitive? What if I read one admin's verdict, think I understand all that's said and is relevant, and disagree with the verdict: should I post my contrary verdict, should I avoid doing this but politely question the verdict here or on the admin's talk page, or should I discreetly shut up? Etc. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is kind of a mix of formal requests and informal formats. The tags for not done, declined, denied are interchangeable depending on your preference and how it fits with your response. They essentially all mean the same thing: the request is not granted.
    As an administrator, yes, you can investigate a request and if it's "blazingly obvious" what to do about it, then just do it. If it isn't blazingly obvious, then ask for clarification or move on to something else.
    Verdicts that are still at the top of the page are there simply because they haven't been moved into the resolved section. I'm not sure if there's even a bot that does this; I see it getting done manually from time to time. If you feel like moving them yourself, go right ahead.
    If you disagree with the decision of another admin, then as you should know, it is customary to write a note on the other admin's user talk page and come to an agreement or understanding, rather than revert the admin's decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I think I've got the general idea. I have "got my feet wet" by moving some unsuccessful requests downwards. However, I'll wait until I'm wider awake than I am now before I contemplate tampering with the actual blacklist. Additionally: it seems obvious to me that this request should be okayed; are we on the same wavelength? -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Be aware that the whitelist and blacklist are two different things. This talk page is for the whitelist.
    Yes, you should whitelist that helium.com link. I am the person who originally blacklisted helium.com and removed the helium.com links from over 200 articles a few months back. I just left a few that seemed relevant (and the blacklist won't kick in on those unless they are removed and then re-added).
    If you're unfamiliar with regex, here's a tutorial: http://www.regular-expressions.info/
    And remember to log your changes (see instructions at the top of the whitelist main page). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:19, 5 August 2011 (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]

    Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

    If your whitelist request falls under one of these two categories, the admins will be more willing to have the source whitelisted if you can acheive consensus at one of the above noticeboards. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

    1. ^ Kumar, Kala (2011-07-03). "Interview with Butch Hartman on "The Fairly OddParents"". Examiner. Retrieved 2011-07-05.}
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=452016538"