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
JenEda (talk | contribs)
24 edits
Line 340: Line 340:
::**[[WP:RS#Self-published_sources|”Self-published sources”]]
::**[[WP:RS#Self-published_sources|”Self-published sources”]]
::Several times you've alluded to publishing mikes pages here to Wikipedia[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=486565734&diffonly=1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&diff=prev&oldid=495209987], 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 {{declined}}--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 02:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
::Several times you've alluded to publishing mikes pages here to Wikipedia[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist&diff=prev&oldid=486565734&diffonly=1][http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&diff=prev&oldid=495209987], 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 {{declined}}--[[User:Hu12|Hu12]] ([[User talk:Hu12|talk]]) 02:58, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
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. [[User:JenEda|JenEda]] ([[User talk:JenEda|talk]]) 05:16, 31 May 2012 (UTC)JenEda


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

Revision as of 05:17, 31 May 2012

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|495246048#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 changes to the way this page is constructed

    • It would be helpful if we could "watch" just the section associated with our request using the template/subpage mechanism that DYK and GAN use, for example. Woz2 (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    Site xuarez.comoj.com

    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 http://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alonso_Xu%C3%A1rez 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 http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#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]

    A History of Broadcasting in the Philippines From World War II to the Birth of Philippine Television

    I have finally found a summarized history of broadcasting in the Philippines, this self-published work(www.socyberty.com/history/a-history-of-broadcasting-in-the-philippines-from-world-war-ii-to-the-birth-of-philippine-television) is from a reliable author, but apparently the domain is currently blacklisted. I hope to use this on the history section of ABS-CBN Corporation to support the statements written on the article. The article has too many unsupported statements and needs verification. Thank you. Hollyckuhno (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Let Me Google That For You

    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]

    Two Village Residents in Swedish Lapland, Where The Train Stops

    Reason: An interesting article about a place in Sweden which we have an article about. Not much else in English can be found on the web. --BIL (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/did-airman-randy-phillips-err-posting-video-coming-out-dad

    I'd like to use this link on the entry for Randy Phillips as evidence of web-based discussion/criticism about his activity. It would amplify two citations in which journalists express such criticism. In no way critical, but it appears a valid social-media style discussion of social media behavior. I guess I am citing it as an example rather than a source as such. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    s14.invisionfree.com/Conchologist_Forum/ar/t2125.htm

    I would like to use this description of the dwarf surf clam for an article I am writing which will soon be moving into mainspace as Mulinia lateralis. I have been unable to find a good description of this shell elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you just need a text description, is there any reason why a forum posting is preferable the numerous reliable sources that already exist on the topic?
    If you need one of the images, have you asked the author of those images to upload one of them to Wikipedia (or better yet, Commons)? That would be more useful to the article than an external link.
    This isn't a denial of your request, just a request for clarification. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted a text description because I could find no other. Admittedly, I might have found more information if I had searched further but once one has looked at the first thirty or so results of a Google search, one loses enthusiasm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    backupurl.com/zo9cxt

    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]

    Calendar Published by AIP on lulu.com

    lulu.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

    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]

    Statsheet

    statsheet.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 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]

    Clipmarks

    clipmarks.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

    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]

    cbronline: 26 April 1992 article

    http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/nancy-s-story

    http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/nancy-s-story was written by Mel Neuhaus. I plan to use it for To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey.

    His [http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus about page]WebCite states:

    Mel Neuhaus has spent the past three decades writing almost exclusively about and for his lifelong passion: the movies. His articles/interviews/reviews have appeared worldwide in such renowned publications and on-line sites as Turner Classic Movies, Home Theater and Sound & Vision.

    In other words, he has published or reviewed for Turner Classic Movies, Home Theater Network, and Sound & Vision. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) states,

    Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

    I believe that Neuhaus meets the criteria of being an "established expert" in the field of film. I will primarily use the information in the article, particularly the interview, with film director Brian Jamieson to extend the "background and production" section. I will use critical commentary from Neuhaus to expand the "Reception" section. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for edit on Denver

    ERROR! Link blocked; could not save page! Had to remove link summary! Please ensure that this page is exempted from the filter! Attempted to make legitimate edit to Denver and the associated talk page, using an Examiner reference. Since my attempted edits were filtered, I am hosting my edits as text documents here (attempted page edit) and here (attempted talk page edit to bottom section of page). Copy and paste the text into the appropriate places to generate a diff so you can see the edit. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: I have made an edit to Denver and the respective talk page. The reference was of course blocked, so I ask that this request still be looked into. I also had to modify the header since the spam filter is now being triggered when it was not triggered before. Please ensure that this page is exempted from the filter! Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One way that you could do it is to omit the http — if you're trying to place a link to http://www.example.com and the system blocks you, simply write www.example.com and the software won't realise that it's a link, so it won't try to block you. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to reinstate the data. We are talking about:

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.justjaredjr.com/2012/04/01/taylor-swift-kids-choice-awards-2012   on article Taylor Swift

    A request to add only this specific website to reference Taylor Swift article and pic in winning an award for her multiple charitable organizations. The news was also repeated elsewhere and televised, so it isn't an unverified item, and it is a good pic of her with Michelle Obama. I don't understand why this entertainment source is blacklisted entirely. According to its 'About' section, "...Today, JustJared.com and Just JaredJr.com receive over 14 million unique visitors a month. Just Jared was recently named to Yahoo’s prestigious Top 10 Bloggers Roll (alongside the Huffington Post & TMZ) and was previously highlighted by Vanity Fair & InStyle as one of the world’s leading Entertainment Sites." Can someone please explain the reason for blacklisting the entire site? I presume JustJared.com is also blacklisted. If they are for a legitimate reason (please explain), can you allow this one reference on Taylor Swift's page? Thank you. Katydidit (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    bit.ly/wlafghan2

    bit.ly/wlafghan2: 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 would like this link to be whitelisted, please, for use as a source in en:Bradley Manning. It is referred to in a tweet by WikiLeaks, and that tweet is used as a source in the article for a key date. But when I link to it, the article can't be saved because bit.ly is on the blacklist. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That URL shortener url redirects to http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/afghan-airstrike-video-goes-down-the-memory-hole/. Is there any reason you cannot use that directly as your source? Anomie⚔ 11:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm quoting a tweet from WikiLeaks in a footnote, and I'd like to quote it exactly for the sake of precision, because the date and contents of the tweet are important. But because this is on the blacklist, I'm not able to reproduce the tweet the way it was posted. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be an option to quote it with 'nowiki' tags on the link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do that, or I could leave it as I have it now (see below). It's just that looks a bit odd and unnecessary (and would still require an invisible note explaining about the blacklist, which I currently have too), and especially odd in an article about freedom of information. Mind you, I might be the only one who ever notices it -- I probably shouldn't assume that readers pore through every footnote. But the point is that I'm quoting Julian Assange, and it would be nice to quote precisely what he wrote, as he wrote it. The footnote is as follows:

    For the WikiLeaks tweet, see "Have encrypted videos ...", Twitter, January 8, 2010, accessed April 6, 2012. The tweet said: "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians ... bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/"

    SlimVirgin (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fort-kochi.com

    This site is blacklisted because www.kochi.com, quite another website, is on the spam-blacklist. So please put www.fort-kochi.com on the whitelist. www.fort-kochi.com is a private non-commercial website which is of value for tourists visiting Fort Kochi, India. A link is to be placed at Fort Kochi.

    outrate.net

    This domain is no longer active, but http://www.archive.org/ still has it. Nevertheless, the domain is listed as a blacklist. I intend to use the review from that defunct website for the Inch by Inch (film) article, but I guess there is no way, as long as the domain is blacklisted. --George Ho (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    outrate.net: 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

    You can still use a site as a reference, even if a working link is not possible. However, what is the exact url to the document that you want to use a sa reference? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to post the exact url here, but it won't let me, archived or not. --George Ho (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you post it without the starting http://, it works. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20101126192052/http://outrate.net/?p=53 --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Traditio-ru.org

    I would like Traditio site to be unblocked, due to the fact that its Russian site and had issues with Russian Wikipedia in the past, but not anymore. It have nothing against the English Wikipedia, or any other Wikipedias for that matter, except for maybe Russian, that as mentioned was in the past in 2007. Since that year, the site have improved, and in order for it to be even more improved Wikipedia and Traditio should work together, and all of the users there agreed with it. Not to mention, there are users that joined on both Russian and English Wikipedias and Traditio as well, and treat both sites with respect. Again, as said before, we need to work together, and by blocking a specific site we only create divisions between the Russian people. Traditio promises that they will not agitate against Wikipedia, and I seen all by myself that it have been minimized. So, I hope people will understand that blocking will result into more division of users, noty to mention, some people might even want to use this site for some projects. I for example, like both sites, and I know some users that migh agree with me here.

    Sincerely Wikipedia/Traditio user,

    --Mishae (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    S. :meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-04#traditio.ru / traditio-ru.org --DR (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.google.de/url?

    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]

    Archiving talk page content that happens to mention examiner.com

    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

    Just trying to move the section "Controversy RE deranking of GLBT books / #amazonfail" from Talk:Amazon.com to Talk:Amazon.com/Archive 1 and the spam filter is blocking me despite trying to obfuscate the link. -- Beland (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot un-delete the section from Talk:Amazon.com after the archiving failed, also due to the spam filter. -- Beland (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had something similar yesterday - I removed a working link, but still was not able to save. Is there something changed in the software, does it hook in a wrong place? Beland, I presume that you 'took off the 'http://' from the link in your first post to make it savable? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to do this and this, because I was not allowed to save the page, even after changing the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And how was this edit possible, we have '\bgoogle\..*?\/url\?' on the global blacklist, which MUST catch that link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] The problem was search.twitter.com, not examiner.com. MER-C 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the google.de edit, it appears that MediaWiki interpreted the text "http://www.google.de/url?" as a link to "http://www.google.de/url" followed by a question mark, rather than as a link to http://www.google.de/url?. The code that does this is in makeFreeExternalLink in parser/Parser.php, it basically assumes that certain punctuation at the end of a bare url is not part of the url. Since the blacklist entry requires the '?' in the url, it didn't match. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, curious that I then could not save the thread, but anyways, it has been resolved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was probably picking up the "link" in the edit summary when you edited the section ("/* http://www.google.de/url? */"); the edit summaries are just added verbatim to the text to check against the blacklist, without any sort of parsing. Anomie⚔ 19:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, I forgot about that. I should have adapted the edit summary. I hope however that the point that the original post could be saved is not propagating, I still don't know why the original post did save while my edit of it was blocked - I did not change anything in the URL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com on Terry Riley

    I've used www.examiner.com/article/terry-riley-s-benefit-performance-for-old-first-concerts as a reference (URL currently commented out) on Terry Riley. It's a run-of-the-mill concert review; I have no connection with the author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    z4.invisionfree.com

    I would like z4.invisionfree.com/telenovelas/index.php?showtopic=1732 to be unblocked as I'm using it as a filmography reference for Alejandro Felipe. I have searched other sites, but there is none, apart from IMDB, but I'm not using that as a reference.--Mjs1991 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    uservoice.com

    I want to reference this in my user space to collaborate with other editors on a discussion/essay of/on policy:

    pcampboston.uservoice.com/forums/154767-session-ideas-for-productcamp-boston-june-2012/suggestions/2743400-why-and-how-to-create-and-edit-articles-for-wikipe

    Thanks! Woz2 talk 16:16, 2 May 2012

    UKMIX page

    I would like to request that www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3755535 be unblocked so that the music sales it mentions can be used in the list of best-selling singles worldwide.

    It is useful as a temporary or placeholder reference for UK single sales for which a more reliable link cannot be found:

    I remember I recorded the Official Beyoncé Top 20 on MTV Hits a few weeks ago. Sorry I couldn't record the whole show though
    Here's what they said:
    Beautiful Liar : 410,000
    Best Thing I Never Had : 410,000 (over 450,000 now)
    Sweet Dreams : 420,000
    Crazy in Love : 460,000
    Halo : 560,000
    Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) : 620,000 (already updated)
    Telephone : 650,000
    If I Were A Boy : 680,000 (already updated)

    The preceding sales data should be here in the original and official list that appears on MTV.co.uk. However, the sales listed in that link happen to be outdated, and the newer data can only be found at sites like the forum link above.

    Please unblock the first web page so we can include this much-needed data in the aforementioned best-selling singles list.--Mauri96 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Online-Scratch-Card

    online-scratch-card.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

    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]
    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]

    Uncensored Interviews interview with Poni Hoax

    I would like this particular URL to be unblocked so that I can cite it on the Poni Hoax page. This link contains 100% unique VIDEO interviews that cannot be found on any other website. (After 6 hours of research for an important project I should know...). The article on Poni Hoax is a stub, and I regularly contributed to the article (I made an account since, but my IP address is the newest one as of this post) because I know alot about the band, and it appears that no one else is willing to post any other information on them. These collections of interviews help improve the quality of an article on a band that's on Rock Band 3 (a very popular music game) and anyone who wishes to find out anything about them should be able to verify the sources I used in the article. If they can't, they could delete important, valid, unique information (especially that pertaining to their 3rd album still in the planning stages) that has the potential to be viewed by a great quantity of people. Sageamagoo (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad 25 Release Details PDF

    Particular URL is for a official document linked to by the MJ Online Team (The Michael Jackson Estate) HERE. At this point in time this is the only official source. This is to be used as a citation on Bad 25 until a better source is found.

    LMGTFY.com on article RTFM

    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]

    ehow.com/how_4621475_almond-jelly-dessert.html

    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]

    pantheon.org

    Creating mythology articles for Wikipedia for example Alitha (Judiac Mythology), and I would like pantheon.org/articles/a/alitha.html. Unsure why the website is blocked.--Mjs1991 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was added after this discussion, due to concerns that it contained unreliable information. Anomie⚔ 05:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    seazoria.com

    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 • 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 seazoria.hubpages.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 scribd.com/seazoria: 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 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]
    Template: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]

    Approved requests

    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]
    Can we allow this link at least at Infibeam? This is a bit silly to have an article and blocking the official URL in this article... mabdul 11:26, 2 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved Stifle (talk) 17:03, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your addition didn't solve the problem: I wanted to add the official link www.infibeam.com within the URL/Official template twice and hit the edit filter. So please update the additional regex again. mabdul 02:04, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The link that was approved was http://www.infibeam.com/static/help/about-us.html; anything else won't work. Stifle (talk) 15:03, 2 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yfrog image for flood

    I'd like to link to yfrog.com/nwk7kkgj from the external links section of Barr Beacon Reservoir. No other suitable image is, as yet, available. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 12:53, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    And that photo library may not be stable. It may be better to contact the photographer and suggest he upload it to Commons. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:02, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any external site may be unstable. Open-licensing of the image has been requested, but may not be forthcoming, or at least not quickly, as it belongs to a large organisation, not an individual. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:24, 16 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I would be supportive of this request. Leaving open briefly for further comment. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved Stifle (talk) 09:27, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/soccer-in-national/dcu-evp-stephen-zack-explains-dc-united-women-partnership

    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

    I have read and understand why examiner.com as a whole is blocked; however, I wish to add to above article to the pages for D.C. United Women and perhaps to the D.C. United page as well. This article contains an interview with an executive vice-president of D.C. United whose statements provide needed information on the history of the founding of D.C. United Women. Thanks for your consideration. Benuski (talk) 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am minded to allow this request but will leave open for a short period for further opinions. Stifle (talk) 12:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Any other opinions on my request? Benuski (talk) 00:42, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    shanghairanking.com

    shanghairanking.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

    This domain was blacklisted on Meta recently with no discussion that I can find. The site is the home of the ARWU world university rankings, one of the very most globally inlfuential rankings out there. It is widely referred from at least Canadian and American university articles and templates, and is not spam by any definition I can imagine. Since it ranks the top 500 universities worldwide, we can eventually expecy at least 500 outgoing links, 1 per article, and it will still not be spam. Franamax (talk) 05:15, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Already removed from meta. Not spam by the old definitions of spam, but someone does have a vested interest in having their links pushed to Wikipedia without discussion, which does fit our definition of spam (more specifically, WP:REFSPAM). Please do help to convince the accounts that pushing their links through socking is not the way forward. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:19, 24 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    An interview from The Metal Observer

    I'm expanding the Timeless Miracle article and this interview - www.metal-observer.com/articles.php?lid=1&sid=4&id=10646 - contains relevant biographical information. Óðinn (talk) 21:18, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale - er, should it really be taking 2 weeks to reply? It's not like this place is bombarded with requests... Óðinn (talk) 19:19, 28 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.raintaxi.com/online/2011summer/card.shtml

    This article is necessary to the background of Hamlet's Father, both as a citation and as an external link. Xavexgoem (talk) 02:43, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Was removed from the global blacklist, so this request should be moot. MER-C 02:17, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The edit I made basically acknowledges the fact that, despite negative impacts on life expectancy, people are living longer. An increasing number of persons are reaching 100. It is a positive improvement in achievement of life expectancy that should be included in your article. Below, in quotes, is an article that appeared in July, 2009, confirming my statement. The article is based upon Census Bureau figures and a report by the National Institute on Aging.

    "Centenarians are the fastest-growing age segment: Number of 100-year-olds to hit 6 million by 2050 THE ASSOCIATED PRESS DAILY NEWS STAFF WRITER Tuesday, July 21, 2009

    WASHINGTON - It's starting to get crowded in the 100-year-olds' club.

    Once virtually nonexistent, the world's population of centenarians is projected to reach nearly 6 million by midcentury. That's pushing the median age toward 50 in many developed nations and challenging views of what it means to be old and middle-age.

    The number of centenarians already has jumped from an estimated few thousand in 1950 to more than 340,000 worldwide today, with the highest concentrations in the U.S. and Japan, according to the latest Census Bureau figures and a report being released Monday by the National Institute on Aging."

    More background information can be found at www.2012miamifacts.com/growing-older. I think the page may have been blacklisted because I failed to respond with the confirmation link sent to my email account associated with the website. I was having some difficulties with access that have now been resolved. Thank you, in advance, for your consideration. 2012miamifacts.com Rdonal (talk) 02:20, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    FreeRepublic.com

    freerepublic.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

    Free Republic is a website and political message board that is usually supportive of the Republican Party (United States), but its owner has announced that the site will not support Mitt Romney, the apparent Republican nominee this year. This declaration is notable and should be included in our article about the site. I've edited our article to quote the owner's statement but I couldn't give the link -- www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2871012/posts (this is the link I'd like whitelisted for use specifically in our article about the site). Free Republic is not generally a reliable source but it's well established that an article about a website may quote that website. JamesMLane t c 08:28, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Straightforward application of WP:ABOUTSELF. Anomie⚔ 11:38, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    google.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

    • google.com/cse/tools/create_onthefly

    I'm interested in this Google custom search, which would allow all of the links on an article page to be directly searched through. It could be an asset to readers, researchers, or those attempting to verify content in articles. I recognize that adding this to live articles would require consensus, but I can't even test it out (on my talk page) with the site blacklisted. The domain was previously blocked (http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007-04#Referral_Profiteering.3F) because it was being used for promotion, but this specific subpage does nothing else except create a search engine which would allow one to dig through linked references and wikilinks on a page. I think it could be a valuable addition, although as a proprietary program, might require an open-source alternative. Still, discussion can deal with that issue provided the site is not blocked. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 18:29, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The /cse is blacklisted because custom search engines are basically a form of redirect service, and those can be (and often are/were) abused to circumvent the blacklist. Specific ones that are not created for that reason can be whitelisted (of course, /cse will hardly ever, if ever, have place in mainspace, but for specifics outside that they are very useful). plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:43, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk, thanks for understanding and adding the page. It turns out the custom search engine code also includes the general domain: google.com/cse, as well as: google.com/cse/tools/onthefly?form=searchbox_demo&lang=. I don't know if you can unblock those as well, without opening up a pandora's box, but those exact links (nothing longer or different) would also be needed. Thanks for your help. Ocaasi t | c 21:03, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    'google.com/cse is the basis, that one should not be whitelisted, as that would allow every custom search engine to be open. We should only focus on specific engines - the latter would be fine - I'll add 'google.com/cse/tools/onthefly' (so the ordering of the parameters after that does not matter). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you again. Please check the short code snippet used to activate the custom search engine on this page: google.com/cse/tools/create_onthefly. As you can see, google.com/cse is used. Is it possible to unblock that link specifically without allowing others based on it? If not, I guess this idea will have to wait. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 08:54, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That one is whitelisted, you can use:
    now without problem - the rest of /cse is still blocked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about a typo if I made one. I don't have the technical background to anticipate or answer these technical questions, so without being pushy, I just want to ask again. Is there a way to unblock google.com/cse without allowing other subpages besides those needed for the on-the-fly custom search engine. If you check google.com/cse, you'll see it's just a landing page and has no use except setting up a custom search engine. I think this search engine functionality could really improve research on the site. Cheers, Ocaasi t | c 15:49, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that is what you mean. Hmm .. as I think that this is blacklisted on meta, I think that that question has to go to meta (make a more precise blacklist entry). It can be done, and I do think that it is useful. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:41, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squared5.com

    Needed for the article Comparison of video converters, (to replace ~sensored~ with url link). Site was blacklisted due to link spam in other articles. Link needed to go to site from video comparison article.

    squared5.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 --Canoe1967 (talk) 15:38, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Could you please give specific links? You can leave the 'http://'-part off, you can then save the edit without problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not sure what you mean. I tried {{URL|squared5.com}} in the article and got the blacklist message.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:24, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Meaning, we need a link to an actual specific page on the site, not just a link to the web site. Squared5.com is blocked, and will stay blocked. Therefore you can't have a link that simply references the squared5.com domain without any page specified in the URL. We can only white-list individual pages. An example of what we need is www.squared5.com/svideo/about.html — it links to a specific page on the site, not just the whole site. ~Amatulic (talk) 17:48, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The about page mentioned above will be fine. The other two choices are windows or mac download pages, and either would be too specific.--Canoe1967 (talk) 17:59, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. Use the URL exactly as shown: http://www.squared5.com/svideo/about.html and it should be allowed (it was allowed for this comment just now). ~Amatulic (talk) 21:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. I don't know how to move this to the accepted section, or whether I am the one to do it. Is it just a matter of cut and paste of the entire text of the section?--Canoe1967 (talk) 22:14, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Two more Google CSEs

    google.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 There are currently eleven CSEs on the Whitelist, I'd like to add two more:

    • http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:leawcwkqifq - CSE for General RS from WP:VG/S
    • http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=003516479746865699832:qdq1uk9p1ua - CSE for Situational Sources from WP:VG/S

    For use within the WP:VG project, more specifically in deletion discussions but far from exclusively. These were built by User:Thibbs. We were using User:Gwern's up to recently, but it wasn't being updated so we made our own. See discussion at WT:VG/S. Salvidrim! 12:21, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:28, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    aceshowbiz.com

    I have to use [www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00013372.html this] to add information to the article Denial. So far, it is the only secondary source I can find that has useful information for the "music video" section. Thanks. Till I Go Home (talk) 12:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00013372.html  Done--Hu12 (talk) 16:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    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]

    yfrog.com/h392jzfj

    I would to add this to David Meerman Scott, Personal life section to cite surfing interest.

    Woz2 (talk) 23:31, 14 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks to me like the page is already cited through Twylah. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:07, 15 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Specific Examiner article

    I would like to add a specific article on Examiner.com to the white list - www.examiner.com/japanese-culture-in-new-york/a-culturally-stimulating-interview-with-the-insatiable-asa-akira - as I want to use it as a cite on the Asa Akira article. Yes I am an admin and yes I know I can edit the white list... I'm asking for two reasons: 1) I'm nervous about doing a screw-up while adding the link and somehow breaking something, and 2) get a different set of eyes to look at the article to confirm it's reliable (it seems to me). Tabercil (talk) 16:15, 8 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read the /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No response => no Declined MER-C 09:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    vkontakte.ru

    – RVJ (talk) 06:30, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a more specific link to whitelist? E.g. vkontakte.ru/index.html or vkontakte.ru/about.htm (or any other representable page which does not allow the whole site to be linked, since whitelisting vkontakte.ru would also allow all other use of the site). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:46, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Dirk. Stifle (talk) 18:21, 11 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This will be closed as not done if a specific page is not named in the next week or so. Stifle (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No response =>  Not done. MER-C 09:46, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    petitionspot.com/petitions/ghostwhisperer/

    The link would be placed as a reference for the Ghost Whisperer Tv series (simply Ghost Whisperer) 'cancelation' section. It would be the eighth reference, I believe. The whitelisting of this petition might be of great reference to a lot of followers of the show. It is stated in the article that there is a petition for renewing the show for a sixth season, but there is no reference attached to it, therefore making it harder for a person to prove the statement true, especially if they are working on a research project or essay on the show. Whitelisting this specific petition might be of some possitive consequence regarding the show. Thank you very much for taking the time to read this.--190.92.44.206 (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2012 (UTC) ~~A.G.~~ January, 2nd, 2012.[reply]

     Not done Wikipedia is not a soapbox. We rarely (if ever) whitelist petition sites. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    google?

    Why do you block NASA pdf on Google? THIS > ht tp://w ww.g oogl e.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=%2B%2522data%2Bacquisition%2Bdatabase%2522&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CFsQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww-misr.jpl.nasa.gov%2FgetData%2FlocalMode%2Flm_id.pdf&ei=p_K0ToTZCpGXtwfBg62nCw&usg=AFQjCNFVQWbSMuXKK-rFEZr3pqG1xyhieg (spaces injected to full out spam filter)

    • Put the url in place U2 in last edit in database talk or post a msg when the filter will be fixed.99.90.197.87 (talk)
    That URL just redirects to http://www-misr.jpl.nasa.gov/getData/localMode/lm_id.pdf. Use that directly instead. Anomie⚔ 14:42, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, Thx. 99.90.197.87 (talk) 17:06, 5 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suite101 (cultural history articles)

    In the article "Femme Fatale" I wanted to include a link to an article that I found surprisingly good and certainly as useful, or more so, than any of the web links currently included in the article. (I can say this with some authority because I am a historian of culture.) Much to my surprise, I found that I could not do it because apparently the website (in its entirety?) is blocked here.

    Now, I don't know what the reasons for blacklisting Suite 101 might be, but I find it outrageous to blacklist articles by this specific author (to whose articles I have directed a few people that I am tutoring to consult them).

    Here is the offending article:

    helle-h.suite101.com/what-makes-a-femme-fatale-a200658

    And here are three other examples of writing by the same author:

    helle-h.suite101.com/mary-mother-of-jesus---her-place-in-islam-a201407

    helle-h.suite101.com/wind-of-war-the-battle-of-the-frigidus-a199158

    helle-h.suite101.com/femmes-fatales---maria-tarnowska-a199746

    There are many other truly fine articles, by other authors, there - too many to have even the authors listed here, never mind the articles themselves. I see no "spam" on that website; there are only advertisements that nobody is forced to click on. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sehnsucherin (talk • contribs) 16:56, 1 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suite101.com advertises with:
    Writing for Suite101 provides you with the opportunity to:
    1. Receive lifelong royalties generated by your articles. ...
    That is why this whole site is blocked, and individual links can be whitelisted upon review by admins. The very nature of the site makes it a site that gets spammed. No specific author is blocked. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:44, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:47, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    vk.com/petrozavodsk

    vk.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

    Could you please whitelist an article vk.com/petrozavodsk becouse it is largest society (17,700 users) in the social network vk.com about city Petrozavodsk (263,540 inhabitants)
    I woul add link to article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petrozavodsk

    Information about the history of Eminis

    I'd like to add a referance to E-mini S&P

    I am a long time day trader and am currently getting into eminis, I found this site that has a wealth of information and the citation that is needed on the emini s&p wikipedia page. I tried to update the post and it said something about something being blocked from spam but the site looks legitimate. The links I am trying to referance is: thedaytradingacademy.com/eminis/what-are-emini-futures-facts-about-eminis/ Please advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwilston (talk • contribs) 08:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi there fellow trader (I trade the ES market also). While I agree that's an informative page, it doesn't contain any information that isn't already available from other reliable sources. I see several examples on Google Books.
    Also http://emini-watch.com/emini-trading/emini-futures/ has substantially similar content with identical graphics, making me wonder who is violating who's copyright. In the case of copyright violations we couldn't use either link. On that basis, this request must be no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:34, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Piracy in Europe: Danube River Pirates Arrested in Serbia

    //www.suite101.com/news/piracy-in-europe-danube-river-pirates-arrested-in-serbia-a393295 seems to be the only available English translation of the probably exclusive article in Serbo-Croatian[4]; the latter page doesn't look malicious or junk in any way. I wonder what is our policy on non-English references for this matter? Should I just leave the translation on the talk page, and drop its link? Ukrained (talk) 20:09, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This request is no Declined although it's a good question. There is no problem citing non-English sources. The relevant policy is WP:NOENG.
    If you're just citing the source, there's no need to provide an English translation (Google Translate does a decent job of that). If you're quoting a non-English source, you should provide a translation of the quotation. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:21, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    e mathematical constant

    I want to add this link to the pages concerning Euler and his mathematical constant. Together with my uncle G. Lasters, who is a mathematician and math teacher in Belgium, I made this video. It is our goal to explain the constant e for students and interested people by showing it's birth, starting with a simple equation. We believe that video can hold added value in the process of understanding math. In the same way a teacher explains something in class. This can be clearer than learning it from a book. Therefor I ask to allow my link to youtube. N. Lasters. Thanks. N lasters (talk) 16:44, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/oowPChmFq00 is a redirect for http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oowPChmFq00. Please use the non-redirected link (if it complies with the external links guideline). Hence, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:40, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't comply anyway. We don't usually link amateur content. Dicklyon (talk) 07:23, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Global Flight

    Global Flight (.net/.de) is a useful and neutral resource for Frequent Flyer Programs, including notably the world's most comprehensive listing of all Frequent Flyer/Traveller Programs. Global Flight is considered as leading resource in the loyalty industry worldwide. It seems that the site was blocked by some German guy for personal (racist?) reasons, but certainly not based on any rationale reasons. We kindly ask you to remove these links from all blacklists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.90.92.91 (talk • contribs)

    Reviewed, it is WP:SPAM. - Ahunt (talk) 11:35, 6 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejected for baseless personal attacks and attempted blacklist evasion. MER-C 02:11, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    eduroute university ranking

    i need to unblock this site to add it as a reffrenc to our university ranking please do it if it's ok thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.66.129.33 (talk • contribs)

     Denied. This site was spammed abusively by a number of IP addresses. Furthermore, we do not whitelist entire domains. MER-C 02:01, 18 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Yachtpals

    Requests for this site to be whitelisted have been many, and rejected because of a perception that the owners of the site are attempting the whitelist process. I have never heard of the site prior to looking for material for my focus on sailing; the listed link shows the down-side of solo transatlantic racing with difficult-to-find photos. Also, inexplicable rationale for denying the whitelisting was that there is no page with this link (which, of course, is impossible because it is blacklisted). --John Bessa (talk) 00:36, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    (Previous) This is a source for both-views news about sailing and racing, a necessary service sailing news tends to be from the perspective of race organizers, boat builders, and others who may benefit from one-sided reporting.--John Bessa (talk) 00:28, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't have a lot of time at the moment to focus on what appears to be an irrational blacklist. You can contact me through this Wp email link. My option is, of course, to take my work to another wiki site, perhaps one I create, and benefit the world from there. --John Bessa (talk) 13:53, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Previous discussions
    Accounts
    75.13.114.125 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    69.228.217.138 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    69.228.227.222 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    69.228.95.14 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Sailingpeople (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Jeremlurker (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    69.228.205.178 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    Abuse such as WP:SPAM,WP:COI and WP:NOTLINKFARM and attempts to circumvent the blacklist, would all seem to be reasonable and rational reasons for its addition. I have failed to find instaces of any "inexplicable rationale" you claim. So, In addition to the previously stated reasons for denial, I've also considered your statement..."My option is, of course, to take my work to another wiki site..", and have concluded that threatening editorial Blackmail is not a valid reason to remove this link from the blacklist.no Declined as Vexatious--Hu12 (talk) 15:29, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I forgot that I asked COIBot .. 'yachtpals.com/sailing-mini-transat-9438 is caught by blacklists: [w:en] \byachtpals\.com\b, [w:ar] \byachtpals\.com\b, [w:gl] \byachtpals\.com\b' .. blacklisted on three different, totally independent, wikis. Seen the languages, it is even unlikely that the same admin has blacklisted this. Seen your 'My option is, of course, to take my work to another wiki site..', I want you to have a look at WP:BOOMERANG, while we  Defer to Global blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:42, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/tv-in-national/jackie-evancho-sings-like-an-angel-on-the-view-video

    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

    I would like to add this article as a link to the Jackie Evancho entry . This article has a good summary of Evancho's activities, and I am particularly interested in using it as a source for the facts noted in this excerpt: "[Evancho] travels back to Tokyo in January to take part in the re-opening celebration of the newly-refurbished Bunkamura Orchard Concert Hall, followed by two days of solo concert appearances. ..." The article is written by a credentialed journalist who has clearly done her homework in researching facts about Evancho. Would you kindly let me know on my talk page if this is approved? Thanks for your consideration. -- Ssilvers (talk) 03:46, 8 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    There seem to be other sources for this same information besides Examiner. Such as the official Bunakura concert hall schedule, for example. http://www.bunkamura.co.jp/orchard/schedule/schedule.php?yy=2012&mm=1&dd=1 (use Google translator to translate it if you can't read the Japanese).
    I don't see a compelling reason to white-list yet another examiner page when other sources are available. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:53, 9 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied Stifle (talk) 12:26, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    ezinearticles.com/?Tape-Recovery---How-Tape-Works&id=1727784 - Specific article unblock request

    Could you please whitelist an article from ezinearticles.com as above for use as a reference for a section in IBM Magstar MP 3570
    Was looking to cite it to support an topic expansion. The subject is computer tape-based data-storage drives by IBM.. Pretty dry stuff. There's no POV issues etc, it's just boring old IT equipment.
    Reviewing some history, I understand the listed site is used as self-reference by some and generally isn't a reliable source. However the article in question provides background on the author, and based on this, I think the author could be considered reliable and authoritative (even if generally the whole site isn't). The content of the article is certainly accurate and detailed enough IMO. I have no personal interest in either the wiki topic or the blacklisted site/article. My motivation is to expand knowledge on topics I have a professional familiarity with. There may be other sources available, but this was the most concise and relevant source I found at the time. Citing this article will simply provide factual cross-references, and while it would take some time, one could always get absolute verification by cross-checking each claim against the manufacturer's product literature. Hopefully this won't be required, given the topic is an obsolete old tape drive format :)

    exinearticles.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 benryanau 08:14, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ascenderfonts.com

    ascenderfonts.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 I do not understand why this web site has been blacklisted. It contains useful typeface information, and it pertains to Ascender Corporation, a notable company. I want to insert citations from this web site and do not have the intention to spam Wikipedia with it. —Fitoschido [shouttrack] @ 28 December, 2011; 13:51

    It isn't blacklisted on Wikipedia, it's blacklisted globally on meta.  Defer to Global blacklist for de-listing requests.
    The purpose of this page is not to white-list entire web sites, but to white-list specific pages. If you want to white-list a single specific page for use in an article about the company, please suggest a full URL. None of the standard links to the home page work (ascenderfonts.com/index.php, ascenderfonts.com/index.htm, ascenderfonts.com/index.html, ascenderfonts.com/index.asp, ascenderfonts.com/index.aspx), so you'd have to propose some other page on that site. For the company article, I'd suggest the "about" page at www.ascenderfonts.com/info/about.aspx. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Introducing a Set of Books about TOEFL

    I would like to add a specific article on test-toefl.com to the white list - www.test-toefl.com/index.php/toefl-material/toefl-books - as I want to use it as a cite on the TOEFL article. This link is useful since there are a number of books mentioned for self-study, so that people who are looking for TOEFL explanations can have access to a trustworthy source TOEFL published by ETS, Princeton, Barron's and some more giant publishers. I appreciate your help.

    •  Denied, link is to a commercial site and we don't prefer one bookseller over another. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all due respect, I suppose you didn't check the link completely because there is no book selling in the link. Even there is no link to the books; how that can be book selling? This is just a source to introduce books. That is why I am asking for a review of my request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.163.122.234 (talk) 18:38, 14 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      I don't understand the purpose of such a link in the TOEFL article. There is no reason to believe that this is a comprehensive list, so there is no reason to link to the page. Can't readers simply search for TOEFL study aids on their own? It might be better simply to list the books in the article without linking to any site. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    smashinginterviews.com/interviews/actors/jane-leeves-interview-actress-hits-the-mark-in-new-series-hot-in-cleveland

    I would like to add this link to the Jane Leeves page as it explains that her production company is longer in business (currently the page only has information implying it's still around). I cannot find any other source for this information. Johnny "ThunderPeel2001" Walker (talk) 02:02, 29 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This site has a history of deliberate spamming from its founders, and has been blacklisted as a result. I don't think that this case warrants changing that position. Here's an alternative link (from Digital Spy) that can verify the text about the production company. --Ckatzchatspy 04:09, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 11:10, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    62mckinneyfacts.com

    Mini articles and tips for the consumer on various topics. It appears that Wikipedia immediately blocked it as spam and was put on the blacklist because the link appeared to be a shortened url, which it is not but is the actual registered domain name. This can be verified on any domain registry. Would you be so kind to allow my domain to be removed off the Blacklist? Thank you kindly.--Zeus62 (talk) 04:32, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Simply, NO, no Declined. These websites are made with the purpose to make money, and that is why they are blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:55, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.gayot.com/restaurants/sals-dallas-tx-75219_15df00108.html

    gayot.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 This site has been blacklisted because of spamming on the site. The site's owner, however, is well-regarded. I would like to use this specific link to improve the Sal's Pizza (Dallas) article with links outside the D/FW geographic region. I'm still trying to dig up an old Texas Monthly link that has aged off the website. In the meantime, the basically accurate and seemingly neutral and independent mention on this site would help demonstrate notability. Pawsplay (talk) 08:18, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article has been deleted  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 15:14, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    www.examiner.com/film-industry-in-dallas/raid-of-the-rainbow-lounge-documentary-sets-date-for-world-premiere

    This article on Examiner.com is for reference regarding world premiere of new documentary on this GLBT / hate crime event. Raine533 (talk) 07:31, 22 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com:
    • Content has no editorial oversight, articles are self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers financial incentives for authors to increase pageviews
    • Wikipedia is not a vehicle to drive traffic to your article Raine
    no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 15:11, 27 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    acnetalks.com

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

    Hi.

    Spam Filter from Site www.acnetalks.com should be removed as it has useful content on subject and would really help the community grow. There are some articles on wiki which need apt addition in content and subject specific websites like this one can add useful information. Recheck the ban or block. I don't see anything spamy in their activities.

    The site is renewed and very subjective on the topic. Other than wikipedia.org very few sites give pure information. we should not ban such sites. I am content editor and have personal as well as professional expertise on writing about skin care topics. Kindly check this filter.

    the blakclisted msg is

    bacnetalks\.com\b # Billinghurst # addition; see User:COIBot/XWiki/acnetalks.com

    Thanks. --Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 09:53, 4 May 2012 (UTC)Priyanka[reply]

    Typically, we do not whitelist domains in response to website representatives ("content editors" ) or those with a related conflict of interest. Instead, we Whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. In addition, acnetalks.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 13:18, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi

    I highly respect your opinion. In fact I too recommend the need to ensure the creditworthiness of the content/sites mentioned in the Wikipedia. But still, I have a few points to make after i read your response.

    I am working for online content for more than a decade now and have abilities to detect editorial “nuances” and restrict “COI” at work. Also, I feel there shall be enough “proof” to SPAMLIST or BlOCK any website. A single incidence cannot be a suitable criterion to judge a site’s creditworthiness. What you call as “links normally to be avoided” is too vast an umbrella to cover the spam sites. Many good sites are bound to mess up on this. Such points in fact serve as a good help to spammers to link a competent website and then get it blacklisted. In that case reputed sites may too get into the trap.

    Your call, you may wish to enrich the World’s greatest encyclopaedia flourish further or languish on the path that is so stricken with biases and prejudices. In my opinion a website must be properly checked before blacklisting. Any bot or filter can not judge a human work. Thanks for a patient read. --Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 07:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Priyanka gupta jain (talk • contribs) 09:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. If you have something to contribute other than promoting a website, why not contribute that. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 16:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. I am here to contribute content and have added desired content (without a source). I hope content is approved and appreciated. If it does, my source is naturally not a spam. Thanks.

    Priyanka gupta jain (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your "source" is spam, period.  Not done OhNoitsJamie Talk 12:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi. But I haven't mentioned a source. Period. This discussion was already closed.

    FYI, a Filter or Bot doesn't decide a SPAM. We better not start a discussion on this highly retrograding subject here. Let's talk about Wiki here. As highlighted by Hu12"Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia" I am here to contribute content, I am sticking to that.

    You being highly experienced editor on wiki can definitely send your feedback on writing/editing. Use separate section for that. You can not use the space to abuse.

    Oh Yes, it is Priyanka gupta jain.-Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.161.136.3 (talk) 18:50, 15 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.

    Resolution Vs. Motion in Corporate Minutes

    Apparently ehow.com is blacklisted. I don't know much about the rest of the site, but I found the entry at (www.ehow.com/info_8511196_resolution-vs-motion-corporate-minutes.html) to be helpful in explaining the distinction between a resolution and a motion. I was thwarted in my attempt to add the link to Corporate resolution. --Ben Best 00:28, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

    Have you read the /Common requests? MER-C 02:53, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No response => no Declined. MER-C 04:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncensored Interviews interview with Frightened Rabbit

    I'd like to add this video (www.uncensoredinterview.com/vlogs/7090-frightened-rabbit-snacks-selling-songs) on the band Frightened Rabbit's beginnings, so that I can cite it on the Frightened Rabbit page. I need this link, as it contains the only proof I have been able to find of the band's activity, sending out cookies as incentive to want demos. It is a reliable source, as it is the creator of the band telling the story, and it was explained to me that the site is indeed a source of spam (apparently over a two-year period before it was banned), but this video is important to the history of the band. Thanks for your consideration. The evacipated (talk) 04:26, 12 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is anyone there? The evacipated (talk) 01:33, 26 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    This Google search yields plenty of interviews from other sources. So, no Declined. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:26, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The only one that contains the bit of information about the cookies is the Uncensored Interviews one. I've looked. The evacipated (talk) 21:12, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Do a search for "biscuit" instead of "cookie" and you'll find plenty. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:49, 9 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/animal-shelters-in-san-francisco/scathing-editorial-breathes-new-life-s-f-no-kill-reform-effort

    I'm trying to find a better source for the "St. Francis Terrier" portion of the Pit Bull article than the Animal People story. See the section on ACC v SF/SPCA on the labeling of Pit Bulls and how the ACC allowed aggressive dogs to be adopted - which ended the program, as opposed to the now oft cited "the dogs killed cats". Inkless (talk) 19:08, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Judge William Wilson house

    The Judge William Wilson House is the only antebellum structure in the city limits of Atlanta on its original spot. This link is the only source I could find documenting the current state of the property other than a "legit" source which is from 2001. I would like to properly attribute that source and would ask this one page on the examiner.com site be whitelisted. Keizers (talk) 13:27, 2 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. Why not use the legitimate source instead? Here's one that documents the state of that property: http://www.atlantapreservationcenter.com/place_detail?id=17&pt=1&year=all and that one isn't blacklisted. ~Amatulic (talk) 18:15, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/collin-county-independent-in-dallas/seth-hollist

    Seth Hollist is a potential candidate running against Pete_Sessions#2012_election in 2012. A link to his bio on Examiner.com would allow people to see his work and points of view. Spaldam (talk) 04:59, 16 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/the-doors-in-national/were-the-doors-trying-to-replace-jim-morrison

    Request to whitelist the specific link above to use in Howard Werth biography as it contains a quote from Melody Maker 1973 which is not available elsewhere. MaxLondon (talk) 23:51, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. The original source of the quotation should be cited, not a secondhand source. Melody Maker can likely be found in library archives; clearly the author of that article had access to a copy. There is no need to provide an external link for valid citations. ~Amatulic (talk) 18:09, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/vintage-rock-n-roll-in-national/interview-davy-jones-when-it-comes-to-the-monkees-never-say-never

    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

    Requesting a whitelist of the link above to use in An Evening with The Monkees: The 45th Anniversary Tour. The link contains a December 2011 first person interview with Davy Jones that specifically addresses the reasons for the cancellation of the tour. I have not seen this quote elsewhere. Under.the.covers (talk) 05:11, 2 March 2012 (UTC) User:Under.The.Covers, 21:10, 1 March 2012.[reply]

    The article looks like hearsay. It seems clear the author of that article didn't interview Davy Jones, and that he's quoting from another source. The other Examiner link in that article references Jones' Facebook page. I can't see how this can be considered a reliable source. ~Amatulic (talk) 17:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No response to concerns raised. no Declined MER-C 04:58, 14 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/historic-americans-in-national/angelic-navy-personnel-enchant-the-multitudes

    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

    Requesting a whitelist of this link due to the great factual information contained in the article, which would benefit the Blue Angels wikipedia entry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jslynch (talk • contribs)

    Have you read the /Common requests? MER-C 02:48, 4 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No response => no Declined. MER-C 03:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Your America

    youramerica.freeforums.org I created an online forum and would like to be able to link to it in the: "Political simulations" page.

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.98.188.10 (talk • contribs) 20:34, 9 April 2012

    Aside from an obvious Conflict of interest, Forums are Links normally to be avoided. Also, Wikipedia is not a vehicle for promoting a site. Thanks no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 19:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    Information for my reply to User:Timothy_Titus and for talk:Church in Wales, on discussions as to whether the Archbishop of Wales styles (calls) himself the "Primate of (All) Wales" or otherwise. — KC9TV 05:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

    Nothing to whitelist... these are not blocked  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 06:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, the last two are blocked at Meta. But if they are going to be used they should be replaced by http://gowermaster.blogspot.com/ and http://gowermaster.blogspot.com/2012/03/archbishop-of-wales-says-time-to-get.html, respectively, instead of linking through Google's redirector. Anomie? 02:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tvrage.com/Family_Guy/episodes/1065168622

    this is a good source for TV episodes. I need it to put sources for the "Production" section in those TV episode articles. I don't see any other spam things there, but it is really useful. please put this out of the list so I could use it. I need it to put it in the article: Leggo My Meg-O. Koopatrev (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tvrage.com/person/id-22626/Brian+Scully

    www.tvrage.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 see #www.tvrage.com/Family_Guy/episodes/1065168622 Koopatrev (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tvrage.com/person/id-53206

    see #www.tvrage.com/Family_Guy/episodes/1065168622 Koopatrev (talk) 03:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I've grouped your multiple tvrage.com request. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available, such as IMDB ...ect. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 02:04, 15 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    effects-of-alcohol.org

    Wiki Pages in which I was linking from: Short Term Effects of Alcohol - Long Term Effects of Alcohol - Effects_of_alcohol_on_memory - Alcohol_withdrawal_syndrome - Blood_alcohol_content - Alcohol_intoxication - Alcohol_detoxification

    I am requesting whitelist status for my domain, effects-of-alcohol.org. My site is purely informational, I am not attempting to spam people, generate income from purchases, or anything else of the such. I was adding my links to various wikipedia pages solely for the visitors of those select pages to get the information that they were searching for. I posted my links only onto wiki pages that were directly related to my content. When editing the select pages, I did not manipulate the content/articles to fit my links nor did I remove links that were already in place, with my own. I do not see what I was doing as spam, and therefore would appreciate it if my domain is white listed.

    If you see that my site is unfit to be posted and thus stays blacklisted. I would appreciate it if you white list it solely for the purpose of being off the blacklist and I would refrain from posting any more link towards my site "effects-of-alcohol.org". I request this so that my domain does NOT face any penalties from search engines. Thank you!

    Thank you for considering my request. SupaH12 (talk) 01:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    You were infact, aggressively spamming your Adsense site effects-of-alcohol.org (created April 2012), See WikiProject Spam report. Whats worse, you were keyword spamming it... SEO style. Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners, and in this case the one responsible for spamming it also. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your blacklisted links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed. Understand that Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote your site. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 05:06, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Hu12, My apologies, I did not read any anti spam rules before editing wiki pages and I completely understand why you had to remove my edits. I would like to make a request for my domain be removed from the blacklist, with the promise of no longer editing wiki pages for my benefit. I am asking this because I would not like to see my domain suffer any penalties from search engines for being on your blacklist. SupaH12 (talk) 05:53, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done as the site serves no useful purpose on Wikipedia, especially given the extensive spamming attempts. Learn from your mistakes. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:39, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

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

    Archived Letchworth Rugby History

    I would like to add a specific article from the Letchworth Girls' Rugby website to the white list - www.letchworthgirls.blogspot.com/2010/09/team-to-beat-black-ferns.html - as I want to use it as a cite on the Jamie Burke (rugby) article. Although personal blogs are typically not allowed as links, this is an archived site now that the rugby team has moved to a real website. It exists to preserve news and information about girls' rugby. I'm specifically linking to it to validate the honours of women rugby players other than the New Zealand Black Ferns. --Dinkfeet (talk) 16:53, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am minded to approve this request but will leave open for a short period for further comment. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I this actually blacklisted? Blogspot is revertlisted, but not much of blogspot is blacklisted. If this specific blogspot is blacklisted, then that must have had a reason. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:49, 14 January 2012 (UTC
    • I'm a novice to Wikipedia, but from the response on my edit when I added it, was under the impression is was blacklisted. Not sure why this specific page, it's a pretty innocuous page from a recreational sports team. --Dinkfeet (talk) 00:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, it's revertlisted rather than blacklisted. That means an experienced editor can add it. Nothing to do here. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    nell-rose.hubpages.com/hub/A-Step-Through-Time-The-True-story-of-Anne-Moberly-and-Eleanor-Jourdain-Two-Women-who-Crossed-the-veil-of-Time

    I want to use this link to back-up the supposed (please do notice "supposed") true story'ness of a song about the palace of Versailles. The link is not to prove it's a true story, but to give a good impression of what the song (by White Soxx) is about. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Berend123 (talk • contribs) 23:52, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I see. After reading your reply I started to dig deeper into the story and found a better reference. (I didn't know the common title for this urban legend/hoax.) Thanks anyway! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.83.115.88 (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Interview of Bob Arno, Pickpocket King, on examiner.com

    I'd like just this page as an external link on en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bob_Arno

    Doesn't seem to be anything wrong with the one page… Reason: good interview by an L.A. TV Insider reporter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mercurie (talk • contribs)

    First of all, can you give us the full path to the document (the full link, but leave off the http:// at the start). In this way it is difficult to examine what document you mean, and we are not going to whitelist the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:37, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course. I'm sorry. www.examiner.com/tv-insider-in-los-angeles/video-nat-geo-s-pickpocket-king-bob-arno-previews-his-craft Thanks… 70.162.163.119 (talk) 04:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC) • Hello? Should I do something else to get this request processed? Re-post? Mercurie (talk) 15:57, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks, just read it. Although the examiner article is true and correct, and I am in no way connected with it, I do not need to add an iffy source to the wiki page. Thanks for steering me to a good explanation. 190.88.35.175 (talk) 19:40, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    www.examiner.com/humanist-in-national/quiverfull-duggar-family-conservative-christian-ideology

    There appears to be some controversy as to whether the Duggars, of 19 Kids and Counting fame are part of the quiverfull movement. This article, apparently blacklisted because it's from examiner.com (?) sheds light on that question. Rather than a complete block to citation of the article, perhaps citation with qualifying information about the reliability of the cite would better advance Wikipedia goals? Lahaun (talk) 04:29, 15 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    www.examiner.com/florida-keys-travel-in-miami/key-largo-hosts-world-s-only-underwater-research-lab

    Requesting whitelist to use in User:Gildir/Craig Cooper (aquanaut)#Aquarius as second citation for Cooper's retirement in February/March 2010. (The other citation I currently have for Cooper's retirement is to a Miami Herald article which is no longer available from their website, and the link I have is to an abbreviated version of the article.) The Examiner.com article seems to be reliable; it agrees with everything else I have read online and elsewhere about the Aquarius underwater habitat. I have no connection with Examiner.com. However, given everything I've read about Examiner.com on this board and elsewhere on Wikipedia (including /Common requests), I'll certainly understand if the request is denied -- in that case, should I omit the reference, or only omit the URL (as I have done in the current draft of the article)? Gildir (talk) 21:52, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    BTW, the article would also be useful for a future Wikipedia article on Ellen Prager, who is interviewed in it. Gildir (talk) 22:19, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    On further consideration, I've deleted the Examiner reference in the draft for now (partly because I found a URL for a less radically abbreviated version of the Miami Herald article). I considered withdrawing this request, but I think I'll leave it on the off chance that it's approved, especially since the Examiner piece would be more useful for a prospective article on Ellen Prager than for the Craig Cooper article. Gildir (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have also now found a second reference for Cooper's retirement anyway (another abbreviated newspaper article). All in all, I think I should withdraw the request now. So:  Request withdrawn. Gildir (talk) 19:24, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/martial-arts-in-san-francisco/molly-hale-an-incredible-martial-artist-making-a-difference

    Requesting the whitelist status of the examiner.com article which would allow people to acknowledge Molly Hale's ability to do Aikido despite that she was deemed a paralytic from the neck down after her accident. It could also help to inspire people who suffer similar issues. The article which would benefit Moment by Moment: The Healing Journey of Molly Hale (film) 99.24.220.45 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)june flowerchild[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Hi,

    I've create a page misnamed "[Editing ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36]"instead of [ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36]. This new page was marked for deletion yesterday. I've explained the difference between SC 34 page and this new SC36 to the editor. After the editor unmarked the page for deletion, it was move to WP:BLACKLIST. If there is an offending link, could you please advice me and move back the page to WHITELIST so that I can continue with edition. Thanks. --108.161.117.248 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the message that I received from the editor who first marked the page for deletion:

    I actually noticed that they were different articles, so I undid my nomintation for speedy deletion. However, I tried to move the page myself and discovered that the title was on our WP:BLACKLIST. I'm not an admin, so I can't override it. I'm not quite sure why, but you can ask someone to change the page title at WP:RM. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

    I managed to move the page to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 without any problem. Even though I'm an admin, I am not exempt from being blocked from inserting something that's blacklisted.
    As a further test, I copied the entire article content to Wikipedia:Sandbox which would also trigger the blacklist. Nothing, no error. I'm not sure what caused the problem you experienced, but if it happens again, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll investigate. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the title blacklist? (which admins can override).. --Versageek 02:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I can't see anything on Wikipedia:Titleblacklist that would trigger on that title. But then it's almost humanly impossible to scan that thing with a mental regex. As the OP said, there's already another article with a very similar title (different only by a digit in it).
    Even if admins can override it, wouldn't I get some sort of warning? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the following line in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist:
    .*\p{Lu}(\P{L}*\p{Lu}){9}.* <casesensitive | moveonly>  # Disallows moves with more than nine consecutive capital letters
    That will match any title that has 10 or more uppercase letters in a row without any intervening lowercase letters, but will block moves only and not page creations. Note that admins (and accountcreators) can override the title blacklist, just not the spam blacklist. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources

    this is a combination opinion and fact piece. I want to use it on the site National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order I am creating as an example of the [right-wing] criticism of the order. Yes, I have read Common requests, and I have also read the comments on the examiner's talk page. Kdammers (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    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]

    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)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=495246048"