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 Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 16:14, 10 April 2008 (→‎www.sveti-stefan.net). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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|204718825#section_name}}

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

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

    Indicators
    Request completed:
     Done {{Done}}
     Stale {{StaleIP}}
     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}
    Request declined:
    no Declined {{Declined}}
     Not done {{Notdone}}
    Information:
     Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
    information Note: {{TakeNote}}

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    www.invisionfree.com

    The www domain doesn't contain any boards (they're all under subdomains) and it's a pretty obvious external link on InvisionFree. Zetawoof(ζ) 12:37, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    invisionfree has a pretty bad history with en wp (this gives an idea). The url is stated on the page you mention, I think there may well be reluctance to whitelist the site. Any other views? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 15:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    try adding www\.invisionfree\.com\b to the WL that should prevent any subdomain links while allowing linkage to the main site. βcommand 15:46, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    If we can whitelist just the homepage or (if you can find one) an about page without opening up access for boards to spam us again I don't see a problem with that. An alternative for the article might be to use http://www.zathyus.com/history.html which is a link to the parent company of InvisionFree. It contains a direct link to the InvisionFree site and in someways provides greater encyclopedic information than a link to the site itself (which seems to provide virtually no information about itself as an entity). -- SiobhanHansa 15:43, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    SiobhanHansa's idea works for me. Even more informative, thanks --Herby talk thyme 19:07, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Zathyus link works, although it's a bit circuitous. Incidentally, I stand corrected on my statement that www.invisionfree.com is safe - there are alternate URLs for boards under there. However, whitelisting the main page only (www\.invisionfree\.com/$) would make things a little easier. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:51, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    xmail.net/evanlong/tcc/Columbine_Attack_Government_Document_Library.html

    A listing of links to public domain government documents concerning the 1999 bombing/shooting at Columbine high School. Xmail.net has been blacklisted but is an e-mail service providing free web space like geocities.com Evan long account (talk) 16:32, 22 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    For an event like that I would imagine there were plenty of satisfactory alternatives? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:02, 23 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The page is simply on a blacklisted hosting service (Xmail.net); that's why it won't post. Considering that the host has nothing to do with the content, that is an illogical approach to blacklisting. What would be more "satisfactory" about the same page on a different server? Please evaluate the request based on the content of the page. Evan long account (talk) 15:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum - I have just noticed given the name of the page you require whitelisting & your user name that there might be a conflict of interest here. Wikipedia requires reliable sources too. The issue is not the content but whether than content can be gleaned from a better source (I realise you may not see it that way if you have an interest in the page). I'll step back & let others deal with this I think --Herby talk thyme 15:57, 25 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whomever is moderating these requests, Xmail.net has been blacklisted for reasons unknown. It is a free web hosting provider on which the users do not necessarily have anything to do with each other. This approach makes about as much sense as blacklisting all web sites registered by a particular pay site. I have requested a whitelisting for this page and received nothing but assumptions and insults from "Herby" for my efforts. Evan long account (talk) 20:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    ARA Santísima Trinidad (1948)

    I would request that the following link be unblocked for use in the article ARA Santísima Trinidad (1948). The link is to a photo of this ship taken in 1965, when she had the name Comodoro Augusto Lasserre (Q-9). In the photo, it is clear that she had been disarmed by this date. www.suite101.com/view_image.cfm/198319 --Toddy1 (talk) 18:52, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please also unblock the following articles, because they are useful as references:

    • naval-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_tacoma_class_frigates_pf03 The Tacoma Class Frigates PF-03, The Forgotten Expendables of The Navy, by Christopher Eger, 8 July 2007
    • naval-history.suite101.com/article.cfm/the_post_war_life_of_the_tacomas The Post War Life of the Tacomas, The Frigates of the PF-03 Class Served 14 Different Navies, by Christopher Eger, 9 July 2007

    --Toddy1 (talk) 19:01, 3 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    associatedcontent.com

    The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.
    • associatedcontent.com/faq.html#C6
    • associatedcontent.com/faq.html#J6
    • associatedcontent.com/faq.html#K
    • associatedcontent.com (for the home page only)

    These links are appropriate for the Associated Content article as an external link to the official site and as verification for non controversial assertions about itself. I don't believe there are suitable alternative urls that provide the same quality of verification in this circumstance. I'm not sure if the anchors used on the FAQ links mean these require separate listing or not.

    If the FAQ page itself can be listed so it can be used with any anchor that might be useful to help editors expand the article more easily in the future and shouldn't really open us up to more spamming or inappropriate links on other articles (I don't think). -- SiobhanHansa 16:15, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I've Whited the whole faq page ( http://www.associatedcontent.com/faq.html# ) and http://www.associatedcontent.com/index.html. Make sure they are in the correct format.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 16:38, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why don't we just tweak the blacklist regex to catch only associatedcontent.com/article/? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 16:54, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is soley for the article Associated Content. There are many non /article/ links that do not meet specific requirements for inclusion and have potential for abuse. In instances when these may be needed as a citation, we can cross that bridge on a case-by-case basis, where the url can be demonstrated as a source (in an appropriate context).--Hu12 (talk) 17:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm cleaning up the Anna May Wong page, and I see that a very good and lengthy article on the actress is blocked. I can't even post the link here. Is this intentional? Dekkappai (talk) 17:59, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And, incidentally, the block blacks out ALL the references at the page. Dekkappai (talk) 18:02, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed all blocked links, you can continue editing. The problem with this site is that it cannot be considered a reliable source, so people shouldn't reference articles with links to it. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 18:06, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OK-- I looked through it and see it's basically a Wiki. Looked like a good article to me, sorry for the reversion. Thanks for the explanation. Dekkappai (talk) 18:09, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it possible that the "reliable source" argument is a little misused on Associated Content - considering that in blacklisting it, reviews and opinions are also being blocked? For example, Associated Content takes the place of some blogs, and in many articles, it discusses blog responses - clearly in a debate about fact, AC cannot be introduced, but it seems problematic to omit it when discussing opinion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.229.156.101 (talk) 16:01, 4 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    No
    Associated Content links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    --Hu12 (talk) 17:04, 4 April 2008 (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.

    zoebelkin.quotaless.com/site/bio.html

    This is to be used as a citation on Zoë Belkin, but can't because 
    quotaless.com
    is in the title. This isn't a bad site, just the 
    quotaless.com
    part is, not the mini-site. ~ Cheers! Dreamy § 13:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tkmc.com.au

    The "external links" section of the Krav Maga article is stale and somewhat lacking in variety (there is only a single US link). Some international resources would be very useful; such as tkmc.com.au - an informative Australian Krav Maga site. -- Somersault (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 01:33, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Not blacklisted: [1]. Go ahead and add it. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:35, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Try to enter it on the site yourself, a spam error comes up. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.56.34.2 (talk) 03:48, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like you figured it out yourself. For the record, there was a link (elsewhere on the page) to Associated Content, which is blacklisted. Zetawoof(ζ) 03:58, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=13330687&blogID=60220717

    The link is to the Gin Blossoms' (band) myspace blog for use in the Gin Blossoms entry They indicate that they are writing material for a new album, but wikipedia has blacklisted all "blog.myspace.com" links. The Gin Blossoms and many other bands and celebrities in general have myspace sites and post information on them that occasionally cannot be found anywhere else. Not allowing a credible link from a myspace blog would be impartial to those who don't have other any means of relaying certain information. The link is just to a specific entry in from the Gin Blossoms' blog and therefore should be whitelisted. 75.31.16.171 (talk) 21:29, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squidoo.com/abolishthedeathpenalty

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

    This is a live debate on the death penalty which I think could usefully be added to the capital punishment debate article. At the moment there is a link to the Wiki reason article on capital punishment but this is in hibernation. Firehorsefish (talk) 12:00, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems its a promotion/”Self-published” piece for deathwatchinternational.org, by DeathWatchInternational (Death Watch International (talk · contribs)). They seem to already have a link in the article. Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 12:35, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I really don't understand this. This is not self promotion it is a debate hosted by Death Watch International. Also, there is no link in this article to Death Watch International that I can see - even if there is one in the main Capital Punishment article. Finally, I am not sure what these reliable and verifiable alternative debate sites are. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Firehorsefish (talk • contribs) 14:18, 1 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Look to the right of the article.."Hi, I'm DeathWatchInternational, Death Watch International campaigns to end the use of the death penalty around the world. www.deathwatchinternational.org, more Death Watch International campaigns to end the use of the death penalty around the world."
    In addition, squidoo.com links:
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
     Not done--Hu12 (talk) 14:26, 1 April 2008 (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.


    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=44313873&blogID=344418365

    To be used on the page We Break The Dawn, shows that Stop This Car was originally intended to be the first single from Michelle's new album, as she writes these blogs herself, the statement is set to citation needed, and this can adequately cite the fact. Breathe again (talk) 00:44, 2 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=131524338&blogID=367949845

    To be used as a reference for the discography/remixes by the Freemasons for their WP page, Freemasons (band). This is taken from their official MySpace page, and is currently the only place where they maintain an up-to-date list of the discography and news on future releases.

    www.fireflakes.quotaless.com

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

    This link should be white listed for an article about The Fireflakes, It's the official site of the Band, and I don't see any sort of trace of spam in it.--Fireflakes (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, WP:SPA role accout for Fireflakes. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising".--Hu12 (talk) 23:50, 6 April 2008 (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.

    www.5min.com

    I want to add the following line to the Jenna Jameson article: "Jameson has also appeared on the "Household Hints from Adult Stars" segment on the Man Show in a skit explaining how to properly clean candlesticks [1]." Can I do so? --FeldBum (talk) 11:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.comedybox.tv/comic-video-the+meeting

    I was trying to add this to the page on Michael Greco. This series of videos is his latest filmed work, and is not hosted anywhere else. He's a reasonably famous soap actor, and this is his first filmed acting work in a few years.NathanielTapley (talk) 12:19, 7 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    www.WudangQuan.Com

    This page was previously listed on wikipedias page for "WudangQuan" but has now been blacklisted. I beieve that the content is completely relevant, the site is not monetized in any way, and guess the the blacklist could only be competitor sabotage. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.52.158.68 (talk) 13:45, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Do you know if any established Wikipedia editors are interested in the link? I suggest raising the question at Talk:Wudangquan and seeing if others think this article needs to have this link.
    As for sabotage, that's pretty serious: do you have some evidence of this we can look into? Who would want to do this sort of thing, especially since you're saying this is a relevant site with no ads?
    Meanwhile, I'll start double-checking the batch of domains that were blacklisted together back in February to make sure we didn't miss some clue.
    Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So far, I'm not seeing sabotage, but I do see that we missed some related domains back in February that should have also been blacklisted:
    I'll catch these up now. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's more of this guy's spam:
    Still no sign of sabotage, but I'll look some more after I get these blacklisted. Thanks for flagging this one.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:36, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


     Not done: whitelisting
     Done: further blacklisting
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    (edit conflict). I'm going to decline this no Declined. There is no "competitor sabotage", just evidence of the owner soliciting the spamming of wikipedia, and attempting to be sneaky in having it removed[2][3].

    WTB: $5 for about 10 submissions to Wikipedia with diffferent IP's

    This is about a 5 minute job.

    I'll pay $5 by paypal for someone to add 2 sites to the external links section of about 10 pages on wikipedia, but the MUST BE FROM DIFFERENT IP'S.

    I would do it myself but I can't access it here in China and can't edit it through a proxy.

    If interested pm me. Payment upon completion.

    Thanks

    Additional spam for hire Accounts

    eslsociety. I also recomend the additional domains that were missed, also be added.--Hu12 (talk) 15:59, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.sveti-stefan.net

    This website is specific and made just for touristic informationS about Sveti Stefan which is famous tourist place in Montenegro. And this site is not, for sure, a spam. There are lot of other sites on your page about Sveti Stefan, but www.sveti-stefan.net is much precise than other, because it's exactly about the topic. I can not find any reason why my website is blacklisted, so I will be very thankful to see that my website is unblocked and returned on the white-list. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pdjuras (talk • contribs) 14:06, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Typically, we do not whitelist domains in response to 'site-owners' requests. Instead, we whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of a link 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 possibly be removed.  Not done.--Hu12 (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=6078136&blogID=368671432

    This page would be used as a citation in Girl Talk for the line "However, Gillis has said explicitly that the leak is not his work and that he's still working on the album." I don't want the whole site, however this is the only primary source for the statement (the musician wrote the blog post himself calling the leak a fake). --Yono (talk) 02:27, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done--Hu12 (talk) 02:59, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! --Yono (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com

    Home page of Lulu (publisher), therefore necessary external link on the article about the company. --Michael Snow (talk) 21:18, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Done I've whitelisted lulu's homepage (www.lulu.com/en/index.php) and all the links that are used as references in the Lulu (publisher) article. thanks Michael--Hu12 (talk) 00:55, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Requests

    www.petitiononline.com/RRH53888/petition.html

    On the page Uwe Boll, in particular, there is a petition in support of him and his movies. To be fair and show both points of view, if there is a petition in favor of him linked on the page, there should also be a link to a petition in opposition of this view. In 3 days anyways. 135,000 in opposition, and last I checked, 14 in favor of him. Evilsmoo (talk) 14:30, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done The other non-notable petition was removed correctly; there's already a link to an article about the topic in the article. Kuru talk 01:20, 10 April 2008 (UTC) I did make sure to sign to petition while I was there, of course... :) Kuru talk 01:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    A good reference should be unblocked

    http: / /transportationhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/louis_bleriot is blacklisted, and I was trying to use it as a reference. I don't see any possible reason it could spam the website, and I believe it is a legitimate web site for research. STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 23:36, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Several concerns. Suite101 articles are realy no different than linking to a blog or personal website, with the exception the authors are paid by how many page views (clicks) they get. The article in the link does not appear to be professionally written and doesn't seem to have any sources. Here are the rules which govern this issue:
    Jointly, these policies determine the type and quality of material that is acceptable in Wikipedia articles. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation or source, (in an appropriate context). Would seem there are probably other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available?--Hu12 (talk) 00:23, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, there aren't that many sources about Bleriot on the internet, and I don't have books that have as much info. STYROFOAM1994talkReview me! 00:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Most of the same information appears to be present at http://www.centennialofflight.gov/essay/Dictionary/Bleriot/DI11.htm, as well as any number of other sites that show up on a search for "Louis Bleriot" on Google. Zetawoof(ζ) 08:53, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done per above. MaxSem(Han shot first!) 09:57, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    revolution.int.tf

    This site gets caught by the spam filter, but it doesn't seem to appear on any of the Blacklists. Try to add it yourself and you'll see what happens. But I couldn't find the address on the global or local spam lists. What is going on? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.73.68.97 (talk) 21:12, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed per Zetawoof, thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:39, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    phoenixtrail.ontheinter.net

    This link is to a community based website that provides interesting background information to the creation of the Phoenic Trail as well as construction photographs and as such is a valuable resource. For use on Phoenix Trail page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Carinya (talk • contribs) 22:50, 13 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done per Zetawoof --Herby talk thyme 13:41, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.commonpurpose.org

    This is an obvious external link for Common Purpose UK. Suggestions? Rangenews (talk) 11:56, 19 March 2008 (UTC)Rangenews[reply]

    no Declined Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia not vehicle for advertising. Additionally the site has been responsible for excessive link placement on multiple wiki's. I see no benefit to wikipeda to consider this at this point. --Hu12 (talk) 14:59, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    z15.invisionfree.com

    My site is currently located on the z15 server of invisionfree.com (put one and one to gether and you get the domain. Is it possible to whitelist just my site? If I need to contact an admin please tell me so (use my talk page). I'll give the link....hopefully. ArmoredPersonel (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    We generally don't whitelist domains for links on user pages. Zetawoof(ζ) 02:09, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I second the invisionfree whitelist, since I am attempting to edit the article of an online alliance (clan) with references from various statements from that alliance's government, which can only be found on z15.invisionfree.com. See Nordreich. The spam blacklist is preventing me from adding numerous such citations. --208.191.51.69 (talk) 20:25, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Web forums are not appropriate sources for Wikipedia articles. You'll need to find a more reliable source for the article. Zetawoof(ζ) 20:37, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    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 to use that are not WP:LINKSTOAVOID. no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 20:55, 21 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So I guess I'll just have to forget about citing the article, or mirror the statements somewhere? --208.191.51.69 (talk) 17:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you misunderstand the concept of primary sources. How do you know the information on your site is correct? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:52, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.anitalyattraction.com

    Provides info on tourist sites in Italy. Tirkfl (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to be whitelisted, as it was involved in a large spam incident. Here's the WP:SPAM report. Zetawoof(ζ) 00:01, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Closed -  Not done. More for a web directory than an encyclopaedia I think --Herby talk thyme 13:42, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    lulu.com/content/1997895

    The above link has been blacklisted on the wikipedia page Jack Says. There is a link to where you can find out more about the graphic novel prequel to the film. I have seen that www.lulu.com was initially blacklisted and has since been whitelisted. The link I wish to be whitelisted is just a specific part of lulu.com Tobymeredith (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined the link serves to sell a book, please use an apropriate citation using the ISBN: 978-0-9556927-0-3. --Hu12 (talk) 18:53, 26 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.cais-soas.com

    This is the The Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies, once part of the School of Oriental and African Studies at the University of London and still hosted by them. It has a good academic reputation - I've no idea why it is blacklisted. Thanks.--Doug Weller (talk) 17:57, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This site was blocked at meta after being identified on the English Wikipedia as a significant violator of copyrights back in May 2007. See the ANI thread that discussed it. If this site is no longer to be considered inappropriate (and I don't have an opinion on that at the moment) it probably ought to be removed from meta rather than white listed here. -- SiobhanHansa 20:55, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined No assertion or evidence of permission, this site violates WP:Copyrights, Linking to copyrighted works.--Hu12 (talk) 23:29, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    www.beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm

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


    This website is a good tutorial site about SQL Programming. It teaches SQL programming in a simple way. Also it covers a wide range of topics in SQL. It will be a good technical resource for Wiki users who would like to learn SQL Programming. I thought of adding the link in the SQL related pages. But I see it is blocked. No idea why? Please unblock it and add it in the SQL related pages. --Tuitapak (talk) 06:27, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    — Tuitapak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. --A. B. (talk) 15:07, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined It was blocked (at meta request) because the site had been hacked and hosted malicious scripting. As I recall (though I can't currently find the discussion) the site owner made attempts to fix it and requested it be removed from blacklisting but the issue persisted and the request was turned down. In any case white listing would appear to be inappropriate. If the site is clean and suitable assurances made that it is no longer vulnerable a request should be made to de-blacklist at the meta blacklist. In the meantime I'd suggest trying to find a similar site that been better maintained. -- SiobhanHansa 13:20, 28 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Hi, I have raised a request to de-blacklist in the blacklist page you have suggested above. I tested the above link in the linkscanner.com and found the website is clean and it is not vulnerable. The reason for suggesting this website is, it discusses some topics in detail like sql integrity constraints, sql subquery, sql joins etc. There are many websites on sql programming, but most of them do not discuss these topics in detail. Try to remove this website from blacklisting if you find, it meets wiki's requirements. Thank You. --202.62.80.3 (talk) 07:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC) — Tuitapak (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

    The question is: will this site remain safe? It was already hacked several times, how can we be sure that it won't happen again? MaxSem(Han shot first!) 08:31, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/November_2007#beginner-sql-tutorial.com.2Fsql.htm
    Accounts
    Tuitapak (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)
    202.62.80.3 (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)
    206.218.218.57 (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)
    59.92.196.22 (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)
    59.92.207.99 (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)
    59.92.200.105 (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)
    59.92.173.240 (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)
    59.92.144.97 (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)
    59.92.192.181 (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)
    139.149.31.197 (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)
    202.131.155.13 (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)
    65.215.113.131 (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)
    --Hu12 (talk) 08:48, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    beginner-sql-tutorial.com, is a known site that has previously transmitted exploit code  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I saw the link you posted above. Seems it was infected before. Think it is fixed now. I find it safe. Being a user of this website , I can asure this website is clean now. You can test the link www.beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm or beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql.htm. If you still find this link is a risk after few days you can remove the link. Also I am not interested in beginner-sql-tutorial.com directly, i would like to add the sublinks which are more useful to the visitors like beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql-integrity-constraints.htm beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql-joins.htm beginner-sql-tutorial.com/sql-subquery.htm

    I find these links are safe. Give a try. Thank You.--202.62.80.3 (talk) 09:53, 31 March 2008 (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.

    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


    Troubleshooting and problems



    END

    Discussion

    Criteria for Whitelisting

    Can we share any thoughts on these please. I don't see anything specific in the way of pointers so I guess we can make our own.

    So far my view have been that is should be

    1. An established editor
    2. Going into a "worthwhile" article
    3. That the editor can be interested enough to present some sort of case
    4. That the whitelisting should be aimed as far as possible at solely what is required

    It would be good to have the views of others too. --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My two cents:
    • Whitelisting should not open the door to a bunch of spam. This would be most likely if the requested whitelisting was a home page as opposed to a deep link
    • Proposed link must meet the Reliable Sources Guideline and be "encyclopedic".
    • Requester sends money to the whitelisting admin.
    --A. B. (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! If they send enough, maybe we'll even call off the Pornographic Fire Parrot ;-) --Versageek 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely, given recent publicity.... I wondered about putting something on my user page in the form of a "deposit box" :)--Herby talk thyme 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearer bonds fit nicely in deposit boxes, and strangely have a calming effect on Fire Parrots--Hu12 (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I put the header in a template to reduce size of this page and included MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam protection

    I do not know if he is the right place, but when I try to post on one talk page I get this message "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter:" I tried to use another computer and I got the same message. Can you tell me what is wrong please? I am not adding any link. 89.181.19.14 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please tell us what page you were editing when you got the message and then we can look at it. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is this one: Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Thank you.81.193.32.83 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Should be fine now. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per-page whitelisting

    Is it possible to do per-page whitelisting, similar to the bad image list? Thanks in advance, Iamunknown 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.associatedcontent.com

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.
    See the above discussion --Hu12 (talk) 00:30, 19 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The weird thing is Im not fully sure the whole site is blacklisted as it even has a Wikipedia article on the site. I used some backup sources for some facts (my main source was a Times article) for the article Anna May Wong. It let me post my major update and then when I went to fix a broken html (< ref> < ref>) in the legacy part it wont let me and tells me said link is 'blacklisted' though its apparently letting other people edit the page. Help! --Thegingerone (talk) 06:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Associated Content links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:

    --Hu12 (talk) 00:33, 19 March 2008 (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.

    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]

    1. ^ Jenna Jameson on Household Hints from Adult Stars, at 5min.com in How to Clean Candlesticks
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=204718825"