Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 13:03, 21 November 2007 (→ezinearticles.com/?What-is-Ergativity?&id=249623: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spam whitelist Archives (current)→
 
Related pages:
Blacklist (Talk)
Blacklist Archive
Blacklist Log

Shortcuts:
WP:WHITELIST
The associated page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki m:SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (sites to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to block), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following

  1. The link that you want whitelisted in section title, like === example.com ===
  2. The page that you want to use the link on.
  3. Explain why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper.


Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|172900539#section_name}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


Languedoc

I followed the link and it seems perfectly legitimate and germane to the article:

[The Cathars of the Langudoc] James McDonald, 2005.

from Wiki article on Catharism Critic9328 03:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is the link? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
languedoc-france.info/articles/t_voltairecathars.htm Octane [improve me] 01.11.07 1053 (UTC)
The domain was blacklisted in July because of spamming by an IP (see [1]). But there was an understanding there were also many legitimate links. This one should probably be white listed so Critic9328 can improve the article he's working on. -- SiobhanHansa 23:14, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wetman, the creator of the Circulade article about circular villages in France, was unhappy at the blacklisting of languedoc-france.info, since that ruled out the best links to illustrate his article. The evidence of cross-wiki spamming above is serious, so the best course might be to whitelist the link just for en.wp and then see what happens. EdJohnston 23:56, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some background:

Notwithstanding the abusive spamming and attacks on some editors, I recommend whitelisting specific site pages on a case-by-case basis here as trusted, established editors request them for specific articles. However, I should also note that these sites are self-published original research and do not meet WP:RS. --A. B. (talk) 01:50, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Request for specific pages will be considered but for the whole site  Not done per A. B. --Herby talk thyme 20:09, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.aceshowbiz.com

I need to add www.aceshowbiz.com as a reference but it's blocked. Anthonyd3ca 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would like for aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography_2.html to be whitelisted for the article Jonas Brothers. My request to remove this domain from the Meta-Wiki blacklist was denied (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#aceshowbiz.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/10#aceshowbiz.com - moved to archive), and they recommended whitelisting the URLs here. Aceshowbiz.com has information I have referenced that I cannot find published elsewhere. It is currently used as a reference eight times in Jonas Brothers, as current reference number 23 ("Jonas Brothers Biography at AceShowBiz.com"). --Scott Alter 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Information not available elsewhere sounds like it might not be that reliable, to me. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at Jonas Brothers and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html, I see that all of the information at aceshowbiz.com has been published elsewhere, so reliability should not be an issue. The reason I prefer aceshowbiz.com's article is that it presents a large amount of information that is concise and relevant to the Wikipedia article. Even though some portions of aceshowbiz.com contain inappropriate material for referencing, there are also articles with factual information. --Scott Alter 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.mysundial.ca

Request for whitelisting Used on sundial Equation of time Diptych Gnomon I examined the site in May as did User:Walter Siegmund see talk page. Carl himself is an IP Wikipedist. I have posted the following on several user talk pages with no response.

What on earth is the objection to Carl Sabanskis site- apart from pitiful use of HTML! It is by far the most authorative site available on the subject and is an essential link. If the problem lies with someones bot please get that sorted- but remove this destructive blacklisting it does no credit the reputation of Wikipedia.

Further a mirror site has been removed. Can we please have this site whitelisted, and the 'bots' returned to their kennels. ClemRutter 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had considerable difficulty in understanding exactly where this request for white listing should be made. Attempts to place it at the bottom of the section, as requested, resulted on no posting (perhaps I was unlucky as my internet cafe had a very poor connection). Re-reading the instruction, *here*, was also logically possible and it looks wrong. I am sure that some one will move it to the correct spot.ClemRutter 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this continues under http://www.mysundial.2see.de slightly different address for the same site, I know this act itself can lead to a 'spam' reputation but it is a valueable website. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this site had better remain blacklisted. The site is not that useful, and it is quite clear from the talk page and the massive cross-posting (with mirror pages) that the owner of the site merely wants to attract visitors. /SvNH 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Events have moved on- and Carls reaction to the breach of WP:CIVIL is not helpful. However, my solution is different- and for exactly the same reasons- Whitelist the url: for the en: site where it has not caused any trouble for 3 years. This can be considered a limited trial. But it is not true that it is not that useful- for anyone constructing dials and interested in the Mathematics rather than the artistry it is the first port of call. I have deleted many links on this page in the past that were not notable (this page attracts them!). Visit again talk page and read my analysis of the posting history. Pay particular attention to the Users who have been working long term on this page. Finally we need to separate the value of the content of the site from the frustrations of the author whose antics have annoyed many other wikis. WP:AGF with gritted teeth. Thank you all for your attention ClemRutter 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea maybe even double ring fence it - put it in nonwiki brackets. Then the researcher has to jump through another ring. Why the page is deemed as not important I do not know but hey I only build them on the odd occasion. As I have said many times the actions of the web author here in wikipedia does not best serve the cause of knowledge, but that should not be a reason for stopping it. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at what is going on in Diptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imho Wikipedia should provide content, not links. Omitting one single external link cannot be a major loss, circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse. But this is, perhaps, a Scandinavian point of view. /SvNH 09:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointer, yes I agree the actions do undermine the usefulness of the site. The site gave the mathematical content of the article. agreed circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse would be worse, but the link did provide information and knowledge. I think now though the website is too intrinsically linked to spam. Ho Hum sad but I suppose we could look at adding the maths into the article. At the moment I cannot see where to go with this. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely frustrating that there is still no resolution to this. It is even easier to see Carl's point of view where the random intervention of someone who had no significant role in the developement of the page- blacklists a significant resource- and all the 'official' routes to remedy are broken. ClemRutter 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this from a distance over many months. From the perspective of a non-admin volunteer who clears a lot of spam in connection with WikiProject Spam, here are my comments:
  • The domain owner has worked very, very hard to get his site blacklisted on meta.
  • The domain owner has been informed many times not to link to his own site. He's been referred numerous times to WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. This has seemed only to harden his determination and persistence.
  • The site seems to be run more as a passion than as a commercial operation. That doesn't change the fact that these links have been spammed, but it is worth noting.
  • The domain owner can be considered uncontrollable and not amenable to any Wikipedia consensus
  • Multiple established editors on en.wikipedia have fought for these links, not because they like the owner's behaviour but because they value the site's content.
  • Nobody on any other Wikipedia appears to want these links at all and they are mad to have had them spammed
My suggestion is to whitelist this domain on en.wikipedia on a trial basis and watch it like a hawk. We'd be whitelisting it not becuase we approve of the site owner's behaviour but because as an encyclopedia, this site has content that experienced editors here wanted to link to.--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the site mysundial.ca. Simple inclusion of that link in any of our current articles would be hard to defend in terms of our policies as written, since it is a personal web site, and the author of the site can't be shown to be a recognized expert from reliable sources. I notice that there is some quirky (and possibly correct) information in there that may not be easily accessible elsewhere, for instance that site is the #1 Google hit for 'cycloid polar sundial.' If sundial enthusiasts feel that this information is valuable, they should consider writing appropriate articles in Wikipedia. Since mysundial.ca appears to be weak on sourcing, I'm not sure if this would be easy to do. People would have to dig up their own sources for stuff like 'cycloid polar sundial' which surely isn't easy. Still, this is the work of writing an encyclopedia. EdJohnston 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As this still remains on the backlog- please excuse a reply. The specific difficulty on this article is finding reliable and understandable information that is consistent in style. It is here that the said site is valuable- in that it is the most complete didactic site around. Whenever any maths is written- it is this site that I will check it against for accuracy- the very traits that brought the author to the attention of the 'checkbots' are vert traits needed in composing a bit of good maths. (Like the dogged attempt to add a link to every new language ... becomes the dogged attempt to cover all types of dial). So your points
  • our policies as written I have personally culled over half of the links of this wikipage- so take it seriously though personally the quality of the site would cause me to be generous- if this were the real problem then citations would now be viable - but the blacklist hits citations too.
  • recognised expert from reliable sources- so he is unpublished but as a designer (from memory:- Pinawa memorial Dial Manitoba etc)shows he is a respeced practitioner. Every respected sundial society lists his primer --- but Wikipedia no longer can (this goes for French, Dutch German sites etc). As he has articles on line published by at least three national societies isn't this enough evidence of peer review.
  • it seems quirky that we (bruised and battered) editors link in to the said site- but our readers have to link to five or six other lists, that indirectly point them to this site.
  • the disputed site is week on sourcing (and html!) but so is the Book of Mormon or the Christian Bible- (both personal websites in their day!) but Wiki standards don't extend to external sites.
No, it was for none of these reasons that the site was blacklisted, it was to do with potential interwiki spam. So let's admit the analysis was wrong. Look at the maths, look at the CADialing. The site is needed on English wiki- so whitelist please and soon. ClemRutter 22:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Lindberg Bellamy salute post blocked

This is interesting. I tried to add the following text to a discussion of the Charles Lindberg Talk Page. It was blocked because the PREVIOUS post had the blocked link. Could someone fix that?

If you google images, you can find quickly find a photo of Lindberg giving the salute, along with a bunch of text, both superimposed on the photo, and accompanying it. Whoever wrote that text all of a sudden uses the term "military salute", although nothing else on that site states that the American military used it a its salute. This appears to be just plain carelessness. Even if American troops gave the pledge and used the salute when reciting the Pledge of Allegance (did they do that? and something that the article does not contend), it is NOT the equvalent of "the miltary salute", which is how soldiers formally acknowledge each other (as far as I can make out). Thus the recent edit after waiting for comment. Steve Pastor 21:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

urindar.sytes.net

Hello, this is my personal domain that hosts my blog, placed at urindar.sytes.net/_v22, and I would like to place a link to it in my user page. I currently cannot do so, because the domain *.sytes.net is blacklisted. Thanks a lot.--urindar 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.mysundial.2see.de

Sundial we have asked many times for clarification as to how to keep this link. This policy is now stopping the development of the article. After a long period of time spent up loading images to be told that it cannot be saved is very frustrating. Please see talk pages for a history. The site to which this link goes does have its problems but is informative, instructional and knowledgeable. What more does one want? --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to that, see above. /SvNH 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

ezinearticles.com/?What-is-Ergativity?&id=249623

Blacklisting ezinearticles.com has prevented me from editing the article Ergative case, I am sure that many others tried to edit the mentioned article unsuccessfully, as that article is still in very poor stage compared to its notability as an prominant Grammatical case.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hakeem.gadi (talk • contribs) 18:53, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
For now I have disabled the link to allow editing the article.
This is the first of hundreds of ezinearticles.com articles that has actually been written by an authority (in this case a linguist) and meets our reliable sources standards. I recommend an admin whitelist this link (only). --A. B. (talk) 20:43, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done and should be ok now, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3451033&blogID=267108076

I was attempting to cite sources for album information on The Live EP, an album by The Black Keys. As this was a digital release via MySpace the only "liner notes" for this album giving information on its production were posted to the band's official blog. This is a primary source posted directly by the band, so it seems like it classifies for the whitelist. The full URL is: /index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3451033&blogID=267108076 sHARD 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=66393725

I need the above link whitelisted so I can reference the announcement, made only on the band's MySpace blog, that Gibson Guitars is producing a signature model for the band. I'm attempting to include the reference on List of Gibson players. Bullzeye (Ring for Service) 08:30, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as  Not done per Guy's comment --Herby talk thyme 20:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77284510&blogID=249286825

For page Anywhere But Here (Buffy comic) - the blog in question is the Dark Horse Comics blog, and contains the announcement of the winner, and the winning information, along with info from Joss Whedon on what he intends to do with the character. They haven't posted it anywhere else, so this is the prime source for this information. Thanks. --Thespian 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

(http)://z7.invisionfree.com/Kya_Dark_Lineage/

this link has been blacklisted becuase it is a 7 invisionfree server, i like to put this link on my user page but it has recently dissapeared because the 7 invisionfree forums have been blacklisted, could someone please whitelist this forum? this forum has a special task to get the creators of the game its about to make another and it would help if fans of the game saw it on my profile and joined to help get a sequel for that game.-hotspot

Have I got this right: You want the link whitelisting to help you use your user page as a platform to campaign for a sequel game to be made? -- SiobhanHansa 15:15, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, but its a bit similar to what you said, it is also a good resource for people who need help in the game-hotspot

How is it different? Or more to the real point - in what way would white listing help Wikipedia be a better encyclopedia? -- SiobhanHansa 12:05, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well it is the only kya dark lineage forum ever made! (excluding a dead one i found that only had 1 member) it will only be on my profile page so it won't do any harm to wikipedia, also maybe a kya fan will go to my profile and find the link and will be helped by the forum, by asking a question there.-hotspot

hometown.aol.co.uk/_ht_a/ianian47/mary.htm

This is the website of St Mary's Church, Sandbach, a new article I have just written. I should like the link to be whitelisted because:

  1. It is a reference to material for which I have not found sources elsewhere
  2. To include the link in the infobox

Thank you. Peter I. Vardy 17:18, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I do have a slight query with this. Would this website be a reliable source? thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

african-american-playwrights.suite101.com

Needed as a source for African American culture and Black Nativity at wikipedia. futurebird 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

salvador-dali.net/_eng/_articulos/articulo_ver.asp?id=167

I wish to add a reference to Être Dieu about a performance of the play in 2005 and I can't find a citation elsewhere.-Halo 19:43, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some history:
I suggest whitelisting only the page Halo has requested. --A. B. (talk) 15:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, should work now, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.thebestof.co.uk/southwark/news/39700

I need to add www.thebestof.co.uk/southwark/news/39700 as a reference for the article Gilly Flaherty but due to the spam protection blacklist, I can't. It's for the content with the section header "Millwall Lionesses", which provides information on the early part of the career of the Football (Soccer) player. Thanks. --Johngooner 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the only available source for referencing? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tutorialspoint.com

I have been at tutorialspoint many times and found that their tutorials specially Ruby on is really very useful, I could not find such helpful material on RoR on any other site. I came across a discussion which is going on to whitelist this site, Here is the link

http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#tutorialspoint.com

Not sure if it will go through. Same time someone already has suggested to add at least their RoR link at wekipedia. But according to A.B. this request has to be put on other wiki page and that’s why I’m doing so for the benefit of wikis. I know I’m not an established editor at wiki but I’m a frequent user of wiki and always have been a great fan of wiki. I’m in middle east and its difficult to find good books around so I’m totally dependent on internet specially wikipedia

Here is the link from tutorialspoint.com/ruby_on_rails/index.htm and I would recommend to add this link at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_on_Rails. I don’t think current tutorial links are useful.

Thanks Scott —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.244.160.221 (talk) 09:22, 16 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid this does not carry the weight of an established editor making a request so I'm closing this as  Not done as no one else has come forward request it, thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jehan.batcave.net

jehan.batcave.net is the url to my personal website, I attempted to add a link to my user page, and was told that it was blacklisted. this link is a collection of musings on various subjects, and in no way, shape, or form makes me any money. Jehan60188 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=108825250&blogID=166356894

This site contains the only full set of rules to Guyball, formed by the King's College London Guyball Society. This would therefore help the page on "Guyball". ISD 12:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can verify that this would be highly beneficial. Dihydrogen Monoxide (H2O) 09:18, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done should work now, thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:01, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

z4.invisionfree.com/Adrian_Edmondson/index.php?

I attempted to add this as an external link on the page about the actor Adrian Edmondson, but was told that invision.com was blacklisted. However, this forum is a good source of news and chat about Ade, and other related articles and people —Preceding unsigned comment added by Artimeia (talk • contribs) 14:45, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to request that invisionfree hosts be unblocked, as they are simply message-board hosting pages, and blocking all invisionfree forums seems a bit odd, especially when many are good resources for information about a topic. --LordHuffNPuff 17:01, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In the general case forums are inappropriate external links and non-reliable sources. The invisionfree forums have been spammed on several occasions. If there are exceptions to the general case individual links can be whitelisted but ought to be accomapnied by some reasoning as to how they're encyclopedic. So far (from what I've noticed) all cases brought up have been like this one - links that apparently fit squarely in the non-reliable sources or links to be avoided categories and for which no compelling special case has been made. -- SiobhanHansa 19:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed as  Not done per SiobhanHansa --Herby talk thyme 20:19, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox.Be

My request to whitelist the beatbox.be domain has been declined without reason, I think. I have tried explaining who was spamming and why, we had a warning but it was in French and I don't speak it, so I couldn't comply. All I want to do is add relevant articles about Belgium beatbox and Roxorloops (vice-world champion beatbox). Our beatbox-site is the only one in Belgium and our forum is international.

I may have said wrong things out of frustration, for which I'm sorry. I wanted to delete this, but my IP was allready banned. As I want to delete it now (my ip has changed), it keeps getting put back by editors, I don't know why because it's my own words I wanted to change, I 've put it in the comments box. Anyway,I haven't got much more to say. I can't believe how much effort one has to put in to get a second chance in here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatboxBe (talk • contribs) 22:23, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

economywatch.com

I don't understand why this site is blacklisted; at any rate I was attempting to take this page out of the category International relations (userpages should not be contained within mainspace categories), but I don't want to remove the user's work. Octane [improve me] 01.11.07 1050 (UTC)

This page might be of interest for further review. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 11:57, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Seems it was blacklisted for conflict of interest, not spamming? In that case we should let the ban on the user stand, and leave the site unlisted. Octane [improve me] 08.11.07 2005 (UTC)

 Not done per Octane, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:34, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DecembeRadio MySpace blog

I'd like to be able to reference DecembeRadio's MySpace blog, as it is a primary news source posted directly by the band. It seems that should qualify for the whitelist. The URL is: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=14481114 —Zeagler 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.bestmusic.ro

I`ve posted some informations about different bands(concerts in different cities). See Deep Purple, Pink Martini. Anyway, those dates (people attended at the concert, date, lcoation) were taken from this site: bestmusic.ro. I`ve use (as I was supposed to do) notes to indicate my source by posting the link in the note section. Also there are some interviews (video or audio) usefull for those who are looking new informations about their favourite artists. here are some links: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_M._Lauderdale http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pink_Martini

I`ve noticed that this site: bestmusic.ro was blacklisted after I`ve tried to post some information about the band Outlandish and its concert in Bucharest. Check out this link, pls: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Outlandish —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.88.148.1 (talk) 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You (and some editors with a clear conflict of interest) were spamming this particular link (and, seen your edit history, another link as well), and I strongly suspect that you have a conflict of interest as well (your IP is close to the IP of the site). See the COIBot reports in these two link-templates:
The site may be of interest, but it was only spammed to this wikipedia, and we are writing an encyclopedia here, not a linkfarm (see also our external link guideline). You are still free to add content, though!
Hence:  Not done
Hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:53, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Blacklisted locally.[2]
Background information
Domains
Accounts
--A. B. (talk) 17:58, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Related domains missed earlier (Renalo Investments)


Possibly related domains
  • Active Soft:
  • IP: 194.88.148.1
  • IP: 194.88.148.11
  • IP: 194.88.148.12
  • IP: 194.88.148.11
  • Netbridge:
  • IP: 194.88.148.13
  • IP: 217.156.103.22
  • IP: 194.88.148.14
  • IP: 194.88.148.14
  • IP: 194.88.148.13
I recommend we have bots monitor the addition of links to these related domains. It's not clear they are all spam, so I am reluctant to recommend blacklisting.
--A. B. (talk) 19:56, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your answer. I only did what i`ve seen before on wikipedia (and that`s the idea of a field called external links - to have the possibility to direct the readers to more complex informations about a subject of interest.) If I say `x sung in Tokio on december 2008 and felt of the stage` - i`m supposed to cite my source. Here are some examples: Akon interview - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Akon (reference no 2) Any new information added on this page was linked to an external source... and that`s the right thing to do. This way I have the possibility to verify the information found, to see the context etc... It is in both interest to have solid information and most important - easy to verify. It is true that behind those footnotes are some webpages - but that`s not spaming... It is called REFERENCE.

Closed -  Not done per a number of the comment above by established users --Herby talk thyme 20:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remark: From the COIBot reports it can be seen that there are quite some single purpose accounts whose only purpose is to add these links to external links sections on several wikipedia (different languages). There are hardly any other accounts who have added any of these links in a way where it was actually used as a source (there have been some reversions by established where the link was reinserted after unrelated vandalism), nor was there any content added by these accounts. It may therefore be recommended that these links are blacklisted at the meta-level. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I take it you are suggesting that this be listed on the Meta blacklist rather than locally? If so, both sites listed or just this one? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Both, I would say. I see both are used here and on ro (sometimes similar accounts). I don't know how the romanian wiki thinks about the links, if there are complaints there, or the link gets added to more wikis than only these two, meta may be appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes - now listed on Meta and removed from local list - thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun of the Dead Director Edgar Wright blog entry on his Myspace page

I'm trying to revert some vandalism and format spamming on the Shaun of the Dead entry, however a reference to director Edgar Wright's myspace blog is stopping me updating.

The reference is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=144582906&blogID=324420860 and it appears to be important to the Shaun of the Dead article, in that it verifies the Directors motivations when they were reported to have refused to make an American TV series version of their movie. DrJon 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

I feel that there is no need to blacklist any links within wikipedia simply because it relates to the Catholic Church. i personally am not catholic, but i do know catholic beliefs, and try to link to them as well as other religions, but i cant because someone put catholicism on the blacklist. the changes i try to add are all perfectly relevant, and yet i still am unable to make any changes. i tried to correct a nonexistant link on the page about euthanasia, Roman Catholic medical ethics, to Roman Catholicism, but for whatever reason, i found that this was blacklisted. It would be a relatively useful correction for any person looking for beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding euthanasia.

And i apologize if i put this under the wrong heading, im still relatively new and not entirely sure how to organize the discussion page, sorry for any inconvenience...

Hi sniper201092 to have something whitelisted you need to provide the link you want whitelisted (just leave off the http:// bit and it'll be postable). Then we'll be able to look up why it was blacklisted in the first place and meak a decision about whter to whitelist it. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_politics/49148

I don't see why suite101 is blacklisted, unless there were problems in the past with a specific spammer. If it's blocked for some kind of policy reason, OK, but if it's just to deal with obnoxious types then please allow me to link this article. Currently I've commented out the reference at Media scrum in order to get through - you can check there for the context. <eleland/talkedits> 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of spam from the site because they encouraged writers to SEO their articles and choose to keep or get rid of writers based on how many hits their articles got. This seemd to encourage a lot of spamming - We also found out that there is no real editorial oversight of the published material and writers are allowed to write on pretty much whatever they like so almost none of the articles were reliable sources (I think there was a link white listed in the last few weeks that actually turned out to be by a bona fide expert). From A.B.'s response further up this page -

:For some background, here's a partial list of Suite101.com spam discussions on Wikipedia:

I don't know if Rhonda Parkinson is a notable commentator for what you're trying to use her for - if so then this link should be white listed so you can use it. If not you might want to look for a more reliable reference. -- SiobhanHansa 01:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

expo2010china.hu

I would like the expo2010china.hu to be whitelisted. The www.expo2010china.hu site is almost the same content as the official site (www.expo2010.china.com), just in hungarian language. On the site you can read a lot of infos about the Expo 2010, photos, webcam, video. All things on the portal related to the Expo 2010. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kewingo (talk • contribs) 12:13, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info will be found here. A series of similar named sites has been responsible for substantial cross wiki link placement --Herby talk thyme 12:18, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. 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 links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
 Not done--A. B. (talk) 01:50, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forcefeed announcements on blog

I am making an article on a Dutch metal band called Forcefeed. Now they made several announcements about their band, such as one of the members leaving and postponing one of their tours, and I would like to add the references to the article. The links are: Johan leaving: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=56961133&blogID=326633140 and Tour postponed: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=56961133&blogID=231990278 and the last one: the recording of their new album: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=56961133&blogID=293621258

Please whitelist them. As you can see if you check out the links, they're normal announcements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nake-Blade (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast Trunk Road

I've created the article South Coast Trunk Road and feel it would be useful to add a link to hometown.aol.co.uk/hamcopublishing/southcoast.html There seems to be nothing objectionable in this particular web page. --rossb 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether this link adds to teh encyclopedic content of Wikipedia rather than whether there is nothing objectionable on the site. Is it necessary for citation and does it meet reliability standards? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snipurl.com link on my user page

Please whitelist either snipurl.com or specifically snipurl.com/akrupp. I'd like to link to it on my userpage. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think snipurl is a link shortener? If so such sites are blacklisted at Meta as a matter of policy to prevent them being used maliciously or to circumvent current blocks. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A particular MySpace blog

I understand why most blogs are blacklisted, but certain bands use it to provide information. Gorgoroth have stated something, and it was rightfully sourced here, but with the link up, it is now impossible to edit the page (I'm not sure how they got it up to begin with) without removing a correct source. The link is http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=99208641&blogID=324636534 ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BombingScience.com on graffiti page

Hi, I recently saw that the BombingScience.com external link was removed from the "graffiti" articles of most languages. This site was in the external links of some of the "graffiti" pages for a few years in some languages, so I have added this external links to the graffiti articles of other languages. BombingScience.com is one of the largest and most important graffiti ressource on the web, with pictures from many countries, news on graffiti culture and events and a large community of graffiti writers contributing to the site.

It is clearly one of the few sites that are true comprehensive ressources on graffiti on the web and this is why I ask this site to be whitelisted in the graffiti articles. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.211.8 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually blacklisted at Meta in response to this request. Give the spamming history rather more information about why you feel that the site should be whitelisted is necessary, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Requests

Declined Requests

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=34726270&blogID=305215395

I am writing an article about Ulver's upcoming album and would like to add information about a release party in accordance to the promotion of the album (Shadows of the Sun), but are not allowed to use this link: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=34726270&blogID=305215395

I need to have this as a reference in the article. Sincerely cun 21:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  •  Not done. Wikipedia is not for social networking, including telling the other fans about the release party. Guy (Help!) 21:49, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is to be used as a reference in the facts about the promotion of the album. It is useful for an article about the album telling how it was promoted. How can I write about facts if I am not allowed to use verified sources? The blog is from Ulver's official MySpace. -cun 21:59, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting Guy -  Not done and closed --Herby talk thyme 20:09, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Really constructive of you. There are several reasons to include this official statement as a source in the article:
  1. It is one of the few sources on one of the few promotional events in accordance to the release of the album.
  2. It is something that actually occurred and thusly deserve to be mentioned as of reason no. 1.
  3. It is way too late to "inform" other "fans" about the event, to inform about it now is strictly encyclopedic.
  4. How can an encyclopedia be treated seriously if its contributors are not allowed to use official statements or the like as sources?
-cun 19:06, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

z10.invisionfree.com/FODU_Open_Board/index.php?s=9e20af114818c6fa144a04e6d2e5dacd&showtopic=4&st=0&#entry2429674

This page lists the membership of the Group of 88, the Duke University faculty that spoke out against the Duke lacrosse team in April 2006. It's being used on the 2006 Duke University lacrosse case page, and given that this is the only place the members list seems to be online, I think it would be useful for the article. Trumpet of Doom 04:19, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

A forum post isn't a reliable source, especially for something that talks about living people. What's wrong with the listing from the website they published? -- SiobhanHansa 11:49, 2 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

declarationofindependents.net/doi/pages/reviews/mic_reviews/mcpinions46.html

I would like to use this particular article on the Major League Wrestling article. It would be useful to that article because it points that Court Bauer, the founder of MLW, apparently lied about the "W.G.O. Properties" company, among other things. Also, there are NO adds anywhere on the page of this article. I am certain that the person who did the article has done his research into the matter. 98.193.77.218 05:14, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Here's some background on that site and the editor, JB196, that promoted it; they apparently have an extensive history on Wikipedia:
--A. B. (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, to put it this way, if the information from the specific article I've referenced is prevented from being in the MLW article, then there's no point in the MLW article existing. The article I've referenced has clearly proved that MLW founder Court Bauer has lied about H2 & "W.G.O. Properties", among other things. It proves that W.G.O. Properties does NOT exist. Therefore, Court could NOT have sold MLW to WGO. And, whomever decides to bring back MLW;if they see this article, then Wikipedia could be in some serious trouble, because I know of someone who plans to acquire MLW and revivie it. 98.193.77.218 00:03, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Not done - Sorry, this fails WP:RS. Aside from the piles of previous issues with this cite on Wikipedia, it's an opinion article for the most part, self published, on what is essentially a fansite (I can find only two links to it on Google, both from blogs). All the factual information given in there should be citable from other sources, if it's true. If this single article is your only back up for 'there's no point in the MLW article existing, then perhaps the subject isn't notable. Additionally, 'Wikipedia could be in some serious trouble,' while vague, is skirting WP:LEGAL. Please refrain from such language, and instead work on finding better cites for this information.--Thespian 13:28, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

salernitanafans.forumfree.net/?t=3152442

No other place on the internet shows the managerial and presidential history of Salernitana Calcio 1919. - Soprani 18:00, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I don't read Italian so maybe I'm missing something, but it appears to be a fan forum, which would not normally be appropriate as either a reliable source or an external link. -- SiobhanHansa 18:56, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Its a fan site, but as I said, it is the only website which lists important information to improve the article. - Soprani 19:31, 4 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So the purpose of whitelisting would be to allow its use in a way that doesn't conform with our policies or guidelines? I'm not really seeing why this is a good thing. -- SiobhanHansa 18:54, 7 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please use http://www.salernitana.it/storia/periodo.asp?id=1 ? It seems to contain the same information (the same text, also), is not a forum, and is from the official site. Tizio 15:44, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done better source identified above. Guy (Help!) 17:55, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.s15.invisionfree.com/msb_ftw

I know that Invisionfree is like a bad word around these parts, but I was just trying to add the link to my own talk page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jasont82) and got the blacklist message (actually, I was trying to edit my talk page and was told that I wouldn't be able to edit my page because of that link). Sooooo, yeah. Is it possible to whitelist a particular link on a single page? Anyway, that's my piece. (And sorry about the spaces in the title...that's not to be obnoxious, but I get the black list message on this page when I'm just following the rules!  :)Jasont82 16:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, no. The spam blacklist applies everywhere. MER-C 06:37, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

tranceenergy.org

I've added the site to the trance music section but it looked at spam... i don't know why because trance energy is a trance portal related to trance and electronic music... where users can post news about they're life, parties, and other... There's olso the section part where i have the electronic music divided in categories... including trance olso. So please remove my link from the spam list...
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.24.24.133 (talk • contribs) 06:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

See the five spam warnings and one block notice at User talk:81.24.24.133
Additional related site (not known to have been spammed):
Presently tranceenergy.org is just monitored by AntiSpambot. Seeing that this user just tried to add the link again after the first 4 warnings and block, perhaps it's time to add this link to the local blacklist.
--A. B. (talk) 12:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Question : So what do i have to do to remove the link from the spam list ? Without beeing blacklisted?
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.24.24.166 (talk • contribs) 11:46, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's a shame you ignored all those warnings; that's really complicated your domains' situation here. I'm glad you haven't tried to spam them on any of our other languages' Wikipedias that I can see, otherwise they'd be blacklisted on our global blacklist which affects our 700+ Wikimedia wikis plus several thousand unaffiliated sites that run on the same MediaWiki software. —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 13:31, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Typically, we do not remove domains from spam blacklists in response to site-owners' requests. We have a stong Conflict of Interest Guideline: if you own or are otherwise affiliated with a site, you are not supposed to add links to it. 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 links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
--A. B. (talk) 13:24, 10 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done whitelisting a site specifically in order to allow the owner to spam it? A novel idea, but probably not what the developers had in mind :o) Guy (Help!) 17:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.nihfm.us.tt

I am trying to figure out why this radio station's URL is suddenly being black listed on our Wild Wild Westmar Show page. As you can see, it's actually visible on the page now and has been for quite some time (Affiliates section). But now we're trying to delete an affiliate and save the changes and when we try to do this, wikipedia won't let us because it says the url is black listed. I don't understand why. Herbert Arthur 16:22, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I notice almost all of your edits are associated with this article? Are you affiliated with that show or its producers?[4] —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:03, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Try this link instead: http://www.freewebs.com/wnih/wnihfm.html
Also I looked at your The Wild Wild Westmar Show‎ article -- you need to do something to establish the show's "notability" or else the article will get deleted at some point. You'll want to take a look at:
That will tell you how to fix this; it's pretty simple. --A. B. (talk) 19:09, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I am affiliated with the show. How much more notability do you guys need than THAT? The page has been up for a long, long time. Let's not get too silly now. I realize wiki wants to stop unreliable entries, but this one is one of the most accurate you have here. Herbert Arthur 03:24, 9 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help Needed

I would like the number 5 site under notes, in the Proto-Armenian language article to be whitelisted. It provides an important link, which is needed as a source for editors.--Moosh88 03:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

meaning armenianhighland.com. There is a reason this is blacklisted. Please don't add nonsense to Wikipedia. --dab (𒁳) 13:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Closed -  Not done --Herby talk thyme 20:10, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Beatbox.Be

Sincerely,

My name is Lawrence and I go by the artistname Beathead. I'm a professional beatboxer and together with Roxorloops we're also administrating a website/forum (BeatBox.Be) dedicated to beatbox. On the international forum, we have an active beatbox-database with tons of movies and information. You can also learn how to beatbox in three different languages, or just hang out with internationally known beatboxers. Some time ago I created an editor account to add info about beatbox here on wikipedia, especially about our Belgian scene. Roxorloops became vice-world champion of beatbox, and is the most refreshing beatboxer of the last years, so there is definitely relevance. The problem about this was that I did not put up any referral links (I did not know a lot about editing here yet, sorry).

This is what I added: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Beatboxing&diff=153141722&oldid=153141432

So the content was removed, after I learned I had to put up referrals, I linked to Beatbox.Be and asked someone else to put links to our site on other wikipedia's languages as well (since we are running an international beatbox forum with users from Nicaragua, Malaysia to the United States I thought this would not be a problem, but this can only be done if content is added I found out later).

But I wanted to try to add another article and put up a link to BeatBox.Be and it said our site was blacklisted. I went to see and I saw on the report ( http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/10#Spam_from_beatbox.be) that we only received one warning and it was in French (and I can't speak that language). If I would of known that I was actually spamming, this could have been prevented.

So, to cut a long story short, I tried to get our domain whitelisted on the general wiki-blacklist, but apparantly there is a rule that says they cannot do this for site-owners, and that I had to try to get it locally whitelisted or get an established editor to present my case on the general whitelisting page. How is this possible ? Could this mail be forwarded to the right instances, so this can be done ? I allready tried to contact an editor who deleted the history in the past, but this probably went unnoticed. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Can%27t_sleep%2C_clown_will_eat_me#BeatBox.Be)

This is the page I 'd like to help and edit, but the information for that is on Beatbox.Be. And if I can't refer to this domain, I'm afraid this content is going to be deleted again and again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beatbox

As a reference, this is a link to previous work I've done on WikiHow, an article on how to beatbox, http://www.wikihow.com/index.php?title=Beatbox&action=history


Thanks in advance for looking into this, sorry for the long post and the bad English. Beathead BeatBox.Be Team —Preceding unsigned comment added by BeatboxBe (talk • contribs) 18:11, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please take a look at this when considering this request and maybe this edit too. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 18:30, 23 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a permalink to the meta discussion in case it gets archived before the issue is resolved here. Given the sometimes uncivil discussion we've already had on meta, I lack confidence this domain won't be spammed here. --18:55, 23 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by A. B. (talk • contribs)

Yes, well I wanted to delete that awful post 5 seconds later and my IP was allready banned. And like I said, the spamming will be stopped. What is your guys problem, Herby and AB ? You are telling me to go whitelist my domain locally and now you are causing troubles in here as well ? Go find somebody else to stalk if you want. How much do I need to tell that warning was in French !!!! We haven't had a second chance since.BeatboxBe 19:05, 23 October 2007 (UTC)


So this is declined locally as well ? What do I have to do to write articles in here if I cannot reference anything ? BeatboxBe 22:08, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

If you are unable to write the article supported by multiple acceptable sources (WP:RS#Self-published_sources), the article itself would fail WP:NN#General_notability_guideline and would be deleted anyway. I'm sure you understand that Wikipedia *must* have strong rules against conflict of interest, that there are many people who come here solely to promote themselves and their own sites and their own pet interests. Are you here for Wikipedia? Or are you here for Beatbox.be? If you are here for Wikipedia then there's an entire universe of conflict-free areas where you'll have no difficulties. Alsee 09:14, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


Troubleshooting and problems



END

Discussion

Archived

This page needs to be archived. Could anyone do the job? --Meno25 01:37, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I archived the items that were completed on or before the end of November 2006. The archive can be accessed by following this Archives link (it also appears above at the beginning of the page).—Chidom talk  08:51, 15 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Backlog

Ridiculous backlog here... I'm working to clear it. If anyone wants to help, great! I'm adding (Status: Approved/Declined) to the section headers to make the process a little easier and I'd appreciate it if anyone who gets involved follows that convention. Thanks, ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 16:38, 17 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hey J.smith, I suggest that we not modify the title, but instead use the templates {{done}} ( Done) and {{not done}} ( Not done). This will allow existing links to titles (such as link#section to not be broken. —— Eagle101 Need help? 20:10, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I've introduced a whitelist log, try to use it for when you log entries, instructions are given on the /log page. Its fairly easy, and the point of it is to allow easy ways to figure out the full context of why something was added. It is modeled after the spam blacklist log. I will be going as far back as possible and trying to log most every entry to this list. —— Eagle101 Need help? 04:09, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Eek... now it's gotten all complicated! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 18:46, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how much more complicated it really is... I just find it easier to look up why we whitelisted stuff. The old method simply had the admin's name and who requested it... that does not really tell anyone why we added something. I stole the method from the spam blacklist, so I'm trusting that its tried and true, (go check out how long they have been doing it). —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:48, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh... and I've archived the page, we are down to 16 (minus the two "done" I left). —— Eagle101 Need help? 21:49, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
After suffering because of the backlog here, now I have my admin powers, I want to help out. I have dealt with one request already- pretty certain I have done it correctly, but if anyone gets a moment, could they check and make sure? Thanks. J Milburn 14:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

New template

{{Whitelist request processed}} creates the note:

Hello! This note is to inform you that your whitelist request has been "note". More information about your request can be found at the whitelist talk page, the log, or the request archives if the request is older. Thanks,.

I figured it would be helpfull for communication. Thoughts? ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 15:35, 23 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I like, its nice for some of the older requests, though for the newer ones, we should be able to expect the people to check up on the page themselves. I'm thinking of getting a bot to archive this page automatically x days after a  Done or  Not done tag is present. That way we can be assured that finished requests will be on this page long enough for people to take notice that something was done. I'm thinking the value of x should be something in between 3-10 days, ideas? —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:16, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and congrats! we are down to 9 more requests... I'm sorry I've not been as active here as I would like... I've been busy over at m:Spam blacklist. —— Eagle101 Need help? 05:18, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, the older requests were what I had in mind. I was going to mass-spam this template sites we have processed recently so people know someone is actually paying attention to this page now.
I don't really know what to do with those Russian/whatever language requests. Maybe I can drop a request at the village pump.
This page doesn't seem to get a high-volume of requests, so 7+ days would be fine. If things pick up, now that the backlog is basically cleared, we can always tweak the time. I'd really rather avoid a situation where the page is habitually empty. An empty page, much like an empty tip jar, can discourage people from participating. (Did you know the staff will seed the jar with a handful of change and a few small bills?) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 06:23, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If there are requests for other language wikipedias, best to redirect them to the proper wiki page. Like Russian should be http://ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist ect ect. And yeah best to keep some stuff on this page, rather than immediatly archiving. I did immediate archives to get this page down to something smaller... from 100 requests down to ~10 or so... we've done well. —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:39, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, those wikis can't approve white listing for this one. Not sure what good it would do the requester.
Yeah, we sure have. :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 17:41, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Mmmm I was more thinking that perhaps the site should go to the russian wiki article, as its more appropriate there... and that might have been the original intent of the poster.... Oh, and I'm taking the {{adminbacklog}} off of this page. I think its reasonably cleared out now. ;) —— Eagle101 Need help? 17:46, 24 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect

Dbiel 00:18, 29 April 2007 (UTC) I am not sure where this should be brought up; but as this seems to be the best choice to me, I am putting it here. WhiteList was originally set up as a redirect to Whitelist. WhiteList is a common CamelCase usage for whitelist that I feel should point to the whitelist definition. This has since been changed to a redirect to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WhiteList which is a locked page used internally for whitelisting. If this is the consensus of where it should go, at least please include a reference at the top of the page pointing users to the definition page of Whitelist so that those who are looking for a definition of WhiteList do not get lost looking at the internal Whitelisting document use by this site. Thank you. Please forward this request to the correct location if I have chosen an incorrect location.[reply]

I am not sure I understand what you mean. WhiteList doesn't redirect to anything right now, but, if it did, it would be Whitelist. A redirect from the article space to the Wikipedia space in that manner would not be accepted. J Milburn 00:24, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the reply, it explains everything and resolves this discussion. I have no idea how my WhiteList redirect page ended up in the Wikipedia name space. I have now recreated it in the article name space. This discussion may now be archived/deleted as per standard Wikipedia policy. Thanks again. Dbiel 08:33, 29 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Review

Things tend to go on the whitelist and get forgotten. I started looking through it and found several sites which were not linked, some which were no longer on the blacklist anyway, some entries which simply serve to override the blacklist for entire domains (why?), some which have no place in the project anyway (e.g. ad-riddled fansites). I have made a review page at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/review and am looking through them. I've excluded the latest ones, which at least have comments stating why they are on the list, and added links to show "mainspace" and "all" linksearch. I did not do this with the expectation of anyone but me reviewing it, but it is going to take a looooong time so if anyone else wants to help please do pitch in. Guy (Help!) 19:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, Eagle has implimented a system that should make anything new fairly easy to track down... but yeah, the older ones are hard. Good idea to review the older entries. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 20:40, 9 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Without warning!

I just spent an hour typing, preparing, and Wikifying a new article, only to have everything erased because the spam filter detected "blog.myspace.com"! Is there any way to recover the writing that was lost? Furthermore, is there any way to offer the user a chance to edit out the "offending" URL before completing the save? Now all the work I did is lost because of your spam filter, and I am extremely frustrated! --Procrastinatrix 19:29, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

If you hit "back" button you will go back to the previous page. Some browsers save the contents of the text-input boxes in the history. Oh, BTW, shame on you for using a blog as a source! :) ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 22:45, 22 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you for using a spam filter to ban links that aren't spam. This list should not be used to "enforce" editorial rules, especially if it causes people to lose their work in the process. (You cannot assume that everyone is as technically-savvy as yourself.) There are certainly cases where a link to blog.myspace.com would be legitimate. If you think links to sites like this are a major problem, create a bot to flag all such links for review. This is not what a spam filter is for. — Omegatron 13:01, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
99% of blog.myspace.com links were spam before it got added to spam blacklist. For those 1% the spam white-list is here. This is how the system works. ---J.S (T/C/WRE) 19:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It was a long-term and vast spam problem, added at the instigation of Jimbo, so nobody's going to be delisting it any time soon. Guy (Help!) 18:24, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Wannabe Kate's Counter is now triggering the spam filter

While updating my user page which had a link to this common tool, (link is, without the http so it won't trigger the filter again, //tools.wikimedia.de/~interiot/cgi-bin/Tool1/wannabe_kate?username=akradecki&site=en.wikipedia.org). The filter is saying that the code that triggered it is http://t. Seems like a wikimedia link shouldn't be doing this! AKRadeckiSpeaketh 18:42, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Resolved
    , clue deficiency in a meta admin, fixed long since. Guy (Help!) 18:26, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam filter won't let me change my archival time with Werdnabot!

I wanted to change my Werdnabot archival time to 15 days, and the spamfilter told me that I added spam, could someone prevent this, or at least change my archival time to 15 days, I have a heck of a lot of messages there! Well you guys might not think 39 is alot, but it's harder than what I'm used to, to get to the page bottom.--Kkrouni/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 18:43, 23 August 2007 (UTC) [reply]

Oh, well I bet wannabe kate is triggering it, because it's on my talkpage above the archival. If it is, then just ignore my comment...--Kkrouni/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 18:44, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's working for the moment but I changed it so never mind. But could some-one tell me what happened once you all think it's fixed--Kkrouni/Ккроуни/ΚκρΩυνι 18:54, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Might be malfunctioning

I'm not sure who came up with this addition to the blacklist (http://tradition.t) but it has now blocked editing of almost every Texas A&M article (including one up for FA status). I request that this particular block be removed immediately and be potentially considered a mallicious act (or a REALLY broad mistake) by whoever added it. There are plenty of reasons that you can have this and a blog site as source. As a source of primary information about some celebrities, their blog sites can certainly be effective for getting information. It should also be noted that I spent 3 years in the communications in the military, so I recognize that these kinds of errors happen, but this one seems to be unusually specificly targeted. — BQZip01 — talk 18:49, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It's working now. As with the above, please let us know what the problem was so we can avoid it in the future. — BQZip01 — talk 19:26, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Spam filter or editorial filter?

As I said in #Without_warning.21, this is a spam filter, and should not be used to block links that are prohibited merely for editorial reasons, like blog.myspace.com or links that violate WP:C. There will always be a few instances in which such links are appropriate. Please remove all such domains.

If they're a persistent problem, create a bot to flag such links for review by editors; don't just block them mechanically. This is causing people to lose their work unnecessarily. — Omegatron 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Time to archive page?

I feel that it is now time to archive this page. Any comments on this matter would be deeply appreciated. --Siva1979Talk to me 14:23, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no point to archiving the page when almost none of the requests have been looked at and approved or declined; all that does is appear to clear out the backlog by hiding it. Should my RfA pass, I'll be cleaning things up immediately after, alternately, what you should do is post to AN and remind people there that the backlog is still here, and growing; I did that 2 weeks ago, and was intending to do it later this week, if needed. --Thespian 14:33, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=172900539"