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 Redberyl (talk | contribs) at 21:21, 28 December 2008. 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|260552762#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)


    http://germany-travel-dot-suite101-dot-com/article.cfm/trier_and_the_porta_nigra

    I don't care much for the domain (suite 101.com), but the specific article on the Porta Nigra is quite an accurate description in English and hence a useful English Source for Porta Nigra that is available online. Is it possible to exempt just that article? Oh and other articles that might benefit from it are anything related to Roman architecture/culture/civilization in Germany/northern Europe. --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to have linked it very successfully in the title of this section. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Stale Stifle (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well though the link was displayed in the topic, the spam filter is still complaining, meaning i can't use the url. Btw what doe "Stale" mean here? --Kmhkmh (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could link it in the reference the same way as you linked it in the header.
    A request is closed as stale if the requester doesn't reply to a query or issue after a reasonable time. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Official Pendulum MySpace blog

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=379158051
    Contains irrefutable information about a disputed release date for use in the article Propane Nightmares which will help to resolve any further arguments regarding the release date.
    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=407371549
    Contains information about the (faulty) Australian version of In Silico which may be useful in the article at some point.
    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=413030364
    Information confirming the release date and formats of The Other Side which may be useful in supporting the article up until the release.

    Several pages from this blog would be useful if whitelisted. I've listed them all separately to make it easier to read. Whitelisting any of these pages would be helpful, particularly the first page – Ikara talk → 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading through the blog I have found other references that would be useful in several Pendulum articles, however I cannot list all the ones that will definitely get used right now. Ideally it would help to have all pages on the blog whitelisted, as well as the top level page for general reference, using an expression similar to:
    \bblog\.myspace\.com/index\.cfm\?fuseaction=blog\.(view|ListAll)&friendID=75424283\b
    I haven't seen this method used in the whitelist yet so it may not be approved of, but it should be noted that the expression will only match pages in the Pendulum blog, and assuming one of them is allowed, there should be no problem with the others. In any case the above entries would still be very useful, and there should be no problem with them. I could really use the above three, so a speedy reply would be very helpful. Thanks – Ikara talk → 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another related request; blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=6039370, which is Rob Swire's official MySpace blog (the band's blog wasn't used before mid-2007) where he states that the band does/did not endorse JungleSound Gold – a CD released boasting "Mixed by Pendulum" on the cover. This is stated in Pendulum discography and should most certainly be supported with a reference, but this is the only one I have found so far. As before the ideal would be:
    \bblog\.myspace\.com/index\.cfm\?fuseaction=blog\.(view|ListAll)&friendID=6039370\b
    Any chance of a reply soon? Thanks again – Ikara talk → 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.storz-bickel.com/

    This site deserves to be unblocked because its commonly accepted to link to the website of the company that manufactures a product that is notable, as the Volcano Vaporizer is. While I understand not wanting to unleash the floodgates of every head shop on the internet wanting to spam the Bong or Cannabis article, an exception should be made for the actual manufacturer of the product. SiberioS (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently declined here. --Herby talk thyme 10:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it technically feasible to unblock for one specific page?SiberioS (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And may I also point out its a bit absurd to block a site on the presumption of its abuse by anonymous IP addresses in spamming, or its potential for abuse, even though it DOES have a legitimate purpose on a specific page. It would be like presuming that linking to Apple or Microsoft's websites are dangerous because they may be used to bolster or spam vast numbers of articles in order to drum sales or support. We should err on the side of allowing it. SiberioS (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't just presumed abuse - the site was abused. The IP who made the initial request for whitelisting also spammed it to a bunch of other articles on en.Wiki and others. See COIBot's report on the additions of the link before it was added to the meta blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This really needs to get whitelisted! It's a totally legitimate site, especially for the Volcano Vaporizer article --Holscher (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The website is the official site for Storz & Bickel GmbH and the Volcano Vaporizer. The website is not an exception to Wikipedia standards. In fact, it is the most germane and relevant external source for information not contained within Wikipedia. The standards suggested in WP:ELYES support inclusion.
    An analysis of the COIBot's spam report indicates that multiple languages, less so multiple articles, initiated the blacklisting. Within a language group, the majority of the articles in question could be considered appropriate. Complicating the matter, the Meta-Wiki Spam Blacklist names the site because of the polylingual appearances. The justification for blacklisting is based on one or two articles per language. The interpretation that this amounts to widespread, inappropriate "spamming" is not accurate.
    Since the time when the site was blacklisted, the article for Volcano Vaporizer has been well edited, with an emphasis on consensus. Despite the strong viewpoints expressed by multiple editors, there has been continued, constructive progress. The dismissive attitude toward whitelisting the website does not fit well with the current standing of the article.
    The independent editors who have contributed the majority of the content for the article support listing the official website as an external link within the article Volcano Vaporizer.RidingLessons (talk) 05:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your consideration. Clearly, the only articles suitable to be linked to the official website are Storz & Bickel GmbH and Volcano Vaporizer, in each respective language. I support whitelisting the home page storz-bickel.com. There is no doubt that this website was abused before, so some limitations are in order.RidingLessons (talk) 06:20, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not the home page, that's the entire domain. What's the home page? Guy (Help!) 11:36, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The general domain currently forwards directly to a Vaporizer promotional page - itdoesn't look like it's necessarily stable as the domain's home page. Suggest the comapny's about page - storz-bickel.com/vaporizer/storz-bickel-company-vaporizer-manufacturer.html - for the storz-bickel article and storz-bickel.com/vaporizer/volcano-vaporization-system.html for the Volcano Vaporizer article. The second link in particular is prone to the same abuse the site in general has been involved in so suggest it gets watched closely - perhaps adding to one of the bot revert lists once it's on the appropriate page. -- SiobhanHansa 12:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I propose to whitelist the following:
    \bstorz-bickel\.com\/vaporizer\/storz-bickel-company-vaporizer-manufacturer\.html\b
    \bstorz-bickel\.com\/vaporizer\/volcano-vaporization-system\.html\b
    I suck at regexen though so can someone else confirm these are correct? Stifle (talk) 13:22, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would someone with awesome skills please assist with this matter? The issue has been ruled on Mediawiki Meta here and a consensus reached. Thanks, RidingLessons (talk) 02:24, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    americanhistory.suite101.com (or at least americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/oscar_wildes_foray_into_civil_rights )

    I am not sure why this is blocked because it is an educational article about Oscar Wilde americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/oscar_wildes_foray_into_civil_rights) and not at all shocking. I notice another suite101.com request on here. I do not know if the whole americanhistory needs to be ublocked but this one story would be nice, thanks. Comradepuma (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) CP[reply]

    Suite101.com is blocked due to spamming; as it is a free magazine-hosting site, it is not generally a reliable source. Can you explain what you want to do with this URL and, if you are citing it, how it is a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The New York Times article about Wilde's experience on the Georgia train is only available in .pdf form and the whole article is not available for free, so I was trying to link it to another source since linking to a partial .pdf seems only partially useful. ` Comradepuma (talk) 03:22, 27 December 2008 (UTC):ComradePuma[reply]

    Suite101.com

    Granted, specific articles by its writers may be unsourced (although standards are improving), but I'm trying to write an article about the company itself and I'm stuck on the fact that I can't include a link in the infobox.--otherlleft (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an index.html which is whitelistable? Whitelisting the whole domain will result in the old problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will find out.--otherlleft (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about http://www.suite101.com/about/ ?--otherlleft (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Stifle (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still getting the spam warning when I try to use this link. Is there a specific template or format I need to use?--otherlleft (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone who doesn't suck at regexen please see if there's anything that can be done about this? Stifle (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html

    Not really certain why this was blacklisted to begin with, but I've been using the site as a secondary reference mainly for information on list of film formats, since it actually includes pictures of some of the more obscure formats. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've said, mainly as a secondary resource. However, this page is exceptional in that it has physical scans of obscure formats, several of which don't seem to be documented anywhere else. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand, I think. The site is rightly blacklisted due to abuse, but we may whitelist individual links if they are of particular merit. In this case that has not been established. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What abuse has been evidenced? I also don't understand the concept that because it may have been inappropriately added to pages in the past that this automatically disqualifies good-faith use of the site. The RS issue may have merit, but this is not the forum for it. I am an experienced editor asking that a site be whitelisted so as to facilitate my editing work, and I have no COI. Is that not the entire point of this forum? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    broken-links.com

    Other than the name suggests the site is a sincere blog about web typography (there seems to be some kind of irony in the name...). --Bernd-vdb (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    uofa.edu

    Hi, I am not sure why our university website url is blocked but could somoene please take it off the black list? University of Atlanta (uofa.edu) is an online unversity catering to global student population. It offers wide array of online degree programs and would serve as an excellent resource for the greater online community looking for accredited online institution. Thank you 12.22.184.3 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amithani (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Whitelisting might be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [1] has details on why this was blacklisted. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. So who is that established editor. Please give me some details? As I said, we're an accredited online university, not spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.184.3 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Twigly jamba (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An established editor is anyone who has been on Wikipedia for a month or two and has edited a reasonable variety of pages. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    urbandub.freeforums.org

    please remove this link to black listed. I'm going to add this link to the article about Urbandub here on Wikipedia. The site is a forum for Urbandub and supporters of the band. Thanks.

     Not done; this may be considered for whitelisting on the application of an established editor, ideally with an explanation of how Wikipedia (and not the website) would benefit from the addition. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blogs.squidoo.com and squidoo.com

    I'm rewriting the Squidoo page, and Squidoo's companion blog "Squidblog" provides valuable information to the page's history section. These are the three sources I want to include:

    - blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2005/10/07/squidoo-is-about-communicating-meaning/ This is when the site was announced.

    - blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2005/12/08/its-ready/ This is when the site released beta testing details.

    - blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2007/03/15/ps-and-the-lucky-lensmaster-was/ This is when the site reached 100,000 pages.

    Also, on a similar note, the squidoo.com domain is blacklisted. I want to use this page to source details on Squidoo's charity contributions: squidoo.com/squidoo-charity-giveaway

    Thanks. Svernon19 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    vuze.com

    2) Vuze
    3) Umm, direct link to the webpage of the application that the article is written about? D'uh. Also: vuze.com/Terms.html
    And boy is it dumb to have a blacklist which negates my careful editting without warning. Blacklists are stupid, throw rocks at them.
    ~ender 2008-12-26 11:41:PM MST

    Approved Requests

    www.ehow.com/how_2123610_host-star-wars-marathon.html

    I have been attempting to improve the Star Wars marathon article as it has been nominated for deletion. eHow has an interesting article that mentions some things that one wouldn't automatically consider (at least I wouldn't) when organising such an event, and the link www.ehow.com/how_2123610_host-star-wars-marathon.html would make a useful reference.-- JediLofty Talk to meFollow me 12:50, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems fairly harmless,  Done Stifle (talk) 14:46, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Official Flight of the Conchords Blog

    This should be whitelisted because it is the band's official blog. They post news on it. News that should be on the Flight of the Conchords wikipedia article, but one cannot reference to a blog. They announced their second season via this very blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=58557805&blogID=374524428 71.231.175.227 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Am I established enough? Flight of the Conchords would benefit from links to their official blog. The old official site hasn't been updated for a couple of years, their myspace page seem to be current. The bit to whitelist would be "friendID=58557805", and the specific URL I was attempting to add is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=58557805&blogID=374524428 Orpheus (talk) 03:48, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is  Done although I've taken all the URL up to the friendID. Otherwise anyone could put a superfluous query parameter onto an arbitrary URL and effectively negate the spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Why would you discriminate against an IP? Either the request has merit, or it does not.
    ~ender 2008-12-26 11:54:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.136 (talk)

    Official I Bet You MySpace blog

    1. I think it should be whitelisted as it is as far as I could find the only, and more important, a quite reliable source for current and future information on the show and behind the scenes developments.
    2. In this case, the article on I Bet You would benefit from it, as I would like to use it as a citation to back up the claim on an upcoming season three. It is currently placed between html comment tags after the relevant sentence.
    3. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=97068158&blogID=395526769

    I hope that this blog or at least this url can be whitelisted, just as Zach Braff's MySpace Blog. Thanks in advance!
    Ewald (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any thoughts yet? Some MySpace blogs seem to be able to obtain whitelisting. Such as the recently approved MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Another_one_of_Jenna_Fischer.27s_MySpace_blog_entries. Thanks in advance. - Ewald (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done, sorry for the ludicrous delay. Stifle (talk) 11:58, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please unblock (tulumba.com)

    Please unblock . tulumba . com / storeItem.asp?ic=MU9399082EH199, which is a valuable link to the Yayli tanbur page. Thank you for this consideration. Badagnani (talk) 23:48, 19 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I started to have doubts about this domain after I added it to the blacklist, this request confirms those doubts.. I've removed it from the blacklist & placed it on xlinkbot instead.. so we'll call this  Done --Versageek 00:07, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Requests

    lyrikline.org

    www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=59&L=1&author=mk01&cHash=4159481764 needed for article Michael Krüger (writer) as it's the only examples of his poetry I can find online.MisarxistTM 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it was blacklisted for copyright violations. There is no evidence that the site has copyright release to host those poems. Does the subject not have his own website? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it was blacklisted due to this, this and this. And might something like this be what you're looking for? MER-C 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! Safe to say no Declined then. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware there was a small spam campaign, hence I'm asking for an exemption for one page, which I have justified. Please agf & look at the particular issue, that someone else was spamming isn't relevant. As I said I have looked for other sources & please note also the oxford page contains only 'one' poem, hence not very useful.MisarxistTM 10:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The site carries no evidence of copyright release, please see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry should have checked properly before, they do secure permissions, in much the same way as a print anthology would. See bottom of lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1 "internationally operating network committed to protecting the rights of copyright holders, and does the utmost to insure that rights are secured for all content on the website – poems, translations, audio recordings, and photographs."MisarxistTM 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we have above a link to an Oxford college, but you still want to use the spammed site on the basis that they claim to try really hard not to violate copyright, even while not actually going as far as documenting the release for the specific content? Guy (Help!) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oxford site has half a dozen lines from one poem on it, hence not very useful. The blacklisted site states they do obtain releases, and furthermore the site is not some random personal website but is sponsored by any number of gov organisations and was was originaly linked with UNESCO, I noted on another page. The page is clearly relevant & usefull, the fact that it was 'spammed' (thought, I should note, not execesively, it was relevant to all the articles added too) should be neither here nor there. MisarxistTM 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Guy — WP:EL strongly discourages linking to sites with copyvios. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But nothing above suggests that the site has ever had a copyvio. It was blocked for spam, not for copyvio. -- Zsero (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    hi. i've been having a similar problem with my own whitelisting request (losethegame.com/kerrang.mp3 above). the admins here seem to be misinterpreting wp:copyright. it says to avoid linking to "known" copyvios. neither the site mentioned here nor the one i want to link to have any evidence of violating copyright, so i cannot see how this can be a good reason to deny whitelisting. the site was blacklisted for some minor spam that took place in 2007 but now that there is a legitimate use. exactly the same as in this request. maybe an uninvolved admin who has some experience dealing with copyvio concerns could take a look and comment? Jessi1989 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You were told to use the WP:OTRS project to obtain proof from Kerrang! that they've released the copyright. There is no misinterpretation here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, and as i replied in the whitelisting request, i contacted the user responsible for copyrights at otrs asking how to do this and he basically told me that copyvios by other sites are not of concern to either OTRS or black/whitelisting. hence my concern that admins here are misinterpreting wp:copyrights. where does it say anything along the lines of sites not being whitelisted unless otrs proves they have copyright permission for all their content? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hi jamie, you are very quick at reverting my edits elsewhere on wikipedia, so why so slow to respond here? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS is commonly used for copyright permissions. It may make more sense to make the request for permission to upload the audio file to Commons. That said, we should not link to an audio broadcast without concrete proof that the copyright has been released. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    this is exactly what i mean about you misinterpreting things. where does it say anywhere on that page you linked to anything at all about not being able to link to sources "without concrete proof that the copyright has been released". nowhere. period. do you really think this kind of blatant deception is appropriate for an admin? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nba all-star site

    While I was editing NBA_All-Star_Game_records after writing allstarnba.es as the reference of the changes I've made, I noted that this site was blacklisted. It's a good resource for NBA All-Star historical information, and some pages are more up to date than the official NBA.com. For example, for the records article I was editing, nba.com/history/allstar/individual_records.html was updated in 2005, and this blacklisted site allstarnba.es/records/ in 2008.

    Some months ago, another user asked in the spanish Spam-blacklist section [2] why this site was blcked.Josedeibiza (talk) 08:18, 28 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is on the global blacklist. We would consider whitelisting specific URIs at that site on the request of an established editor. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:11, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    BikeCyclingReviews site

    I have no idea why bikecyclingreviews.com is in the blacklist. These guys give lots of information about cycling and reviews on bikes, apart from that they answer every day questions to their readers in the FAQ section. This is by no reason a blacklisted site. I'd consider removing them from this black list and definitely whitelisting BikeCyclingReviews again.

    The following link is an example of the great work they are doing for cyclists: bikecyclingreviews.com/faq/We_Think_Polar_is_Great.html

    After reading Alastair's answer to a readers question, and the discussion created from it, you can figure out that this site deserves to be out of any blacklist at all. bikecyclingreviews contains hundreds of bike related reviews and opinions that can benefit any cycling fan.

    --88.31.249.233 (talk) 07:54, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. The request does not address the reasons for blacklisting and does not show how this would be of benefit to the encyclopaedia rather than the site. And yes, I am an every day cyclist. Guy (Help!) 11:16, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Um, how can the request address the reasons for blacklisting, when the requester doesn't know them? -- Zsero (talk) 12:45, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Zsero above, however I find a different reason for, perhaps?, not approving a whitelist. Where does the original requester want to use the link as a reference?
    ~ender 2008-12-27 12:05:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.136 (talk)

    official artist myspace pages

    For use on This Is Home Please unblock both

    • blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=197111722&blogID=378509344
    • blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4441967&blogID=390675704

    If both these blogs can be unblocked via friend Id that would be even better. Thanks --T-rex 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not a blog. This is an official announcement by the band. The reason I want these sites unblocked is so that they can be used instead of the blog that is currently being used. This is a reliable source. --T-rex 15:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, blogs are still not reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a reliable source. Simply because the word "blog" is in the url is not the reason to treat it as one. --T-rex 17:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    More specifically, because of this wikipedia policy: Wikipedia:Verifiability#Using_self-published_and_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves
    ~ender 2008-12-27 12:02:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.136 (talk)

    Digipress

    Bio Miracle Bokutte Upa's article needs a citation for Howard Lincoln's comment. The comment was taken from http://www.digitpress.com/reviews/biomiraclebokutte.htm so we only need that page.Bragador (talk) 01:02, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    That doesn't seem to be a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined Stifle (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Removing citation needed from that webpage then, since the blacklist, and the admins refuse to allow the citation. ~ender 2008-12-27 12:09:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.136 (talk)
    I've re-added it for you. You can read the policy on reliable sources Stifle linked to above. If you can find a source which supports the statement, please replace the tag; if one cannot be found, then the unsupported statement should be removed completely. Thanks. Kuru talk 15:40, 27 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Symphony in Peril's MySpace blog

    I was doing some work to expand the article for the band Symphony in Peril and found that MySpace blog URLs were blacklisted. I would like the following two URLs whitelisted as they pertain to specific announcements directly from the band regarding a member change and the band's breakup:

    http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2215155&blogID=19583901 http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2215155&blogID=55272717

    Theonethird (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I have whitelisted this based on the fact that this is the band's blog; that's the one time we link to blogs.
     Done. Sorry you had to wait. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:54, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for taking care of that! Theonethird (talk) 17:49, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually the links still don't seem to be working. I tried editing the page and they're still blocked. Theonethird (talk) 17:57, 11 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The second one has been permitted, not the first one. Are they both needed? Stifle (talk) 11:55, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of response. Stifle (talk) 11:07, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    infolive.sytes.net

    There is an external link in 2B1 Oka article about a soviet self-propelled mortar. The link points to a blog or alike with a real in-depth historical explanation (if you don't know Russian, just look at the photos) to the otherwise very stub wiki-article. First I thought it was a wiki-markup error when saw a whitespace beetween “infolive” and “sytes.net”, but when tried to correct, I received an error message from spam blocking filter. Please, white list the site, because as for now the link looks broken and is unusable unless extracted manually. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey Herby, do you have a wikipedia policy you're following, or just a personal bias against people who refuse to surrender their anonymity?
    ~ender 2008-12-27 12:13:AM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.136 (talk)
     Not done Stifle (talk) 11:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    irish-fiction.suite101.com

    My edit of the wikipedia page, John Banville, Style, and the references to the irish-fiction links should be permitted. Both links connect to articles germain to the style description on the wikipedia page and both expand the very brief assessment of Banville's style that is provided on the wikipedia page: both articles at those links are fully referenced with direct quotes from Banville's novel, fully referenced quotes from literary critics, and fully referenced definitions in the glossary provided. Also, I'm a freelancer with a Masters degree, a published (not self-published)fiction writer, and a reviewer, etc. What other credentials and references would you need to edit a wikipedia page? So far the style page on Banville lavishly praises his style; in fact there is a lot of discussion about the merit of that style and my edit and linked articles address that discussion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Spotrocket (talk • contribs) 19:10, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    sermonaudio.com

    www.sermonaudio.com is okay. Please revert this edit and see the discussion.
    --71.118.38.240 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=108050538&blogID=431088741

    This is the band Angra's official MySpace page. Incorrect information has been circulating recently about the band breaking up, and I am trying to fix the Wikipedia entry to reflect the band's official response.

    Entry in question: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angra_(band) 132.177.70.217 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, myspace is not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I see that the only other couple recent requests to link to artist's MySpace pages have all been blocked by the same person, Stifle. If you scroll just a few entries up (the Symphony in Peril whitelist request) you will see the exact same type of request I have made being approved by a different admin. This isn't just some blog or a random Joe's Myspace, it's an official point of communication for the band. I would request this be re-evaluated and not just refused because of some blanket mistrust of anything to do with Myspace. More and more artists are using sites such as this as primary sources of band announcements, and to completely disregard those sites due to to some of the other content hosted on them seems like a rather unfortunate judgment call. Just because an artist chooses to communicate somewhere other than "BandName.com" doesn't suddenly mean the information is invalid or the credibility suspect.132.177.70.217 (talk) 16:50, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia's mission is not to assist contact with the band. Their official website should be sufficient, we do not need to link to every single site with which they are associated. Guy (Help!) 22:26, 18 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, wikipedia should give out un-sourced information, or wrong information because the blacklist won't let people actually cite relevant information?
    Wow.
    You go admins, go!!
    ~ender 2008-12-27 12:18:PM MST —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.240.15.136 (talk)

    MySpace blog containing professional reviews.

    This page contains professional reviews, which will help explain the notability of the band. The article where I will be using the link is Den Saakaldte, and the URL is http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=192302306&blogID=389852693&Mytoken=14E599A7-BCE1-4C1E-BB9CDA55C1F34415368087. Thanks. Erzsébet Báthory(talk|contr.) 10:52, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=30242378&blogID=362127421

    This is the Myspace page of The Long Blondes (the blog page for www.myspace.com/thelongblondes), and is used as a reference in "Couples" (album). Currently the URL used in the page is www.useurl.us/3dg which is a redirect. If anything should be blacklisted it is www.useurl.com as it could redirect to any page. --Snigbrook (talk) 22:58, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    vivien-leigh.info

    This site vivien-leigh.info seems to have been blocked. Can you please help me remove the block? I believe that nothing is wrong with this site. It is about Vivien Leigh and it is great source about the great actress. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ksenia Malkovich (talk • contribs) 16:19, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    pz10.com

    This site www.pz10.com seems blocked. please remove it . It is one of the top most visited website in india for indian music.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Pz10.com&action=submit This will help users read about pz10.com on wikipedia.

    --Robsingh (talk) 04:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Stifle (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Nefac.net

    NEFAC are a prominent anarchist organization but I cannot link to their page on Wikipedia. I do not understand this because it could not be spam or defamatory etc. Wikipedia bosses please explain why this link is banned. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.172.139 (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What?!! reliable sources has nothing to do with it - it's the official website of the organization and the organization is notable. The spam was by one guy on an inappropriate article (antifascism) over a year ago. Banning it is way out of proportion. If someone started putting inappropriate google.com (also "not a reliable source") links into articles, you wouldnt ban that would you. Silliness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.193 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is an appropriate (and recommended) external link on the article about the organization. That page currently links to the website using the IP address which is probably not ideal for us. Recommend whitelisting home page only (or possibly nefac.net/node/83 if people think it's less likely to get spammed) for this page only and maybe having it watched by AntiSpamBot. -- SiobhanHansa 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you scroll up a bit there is a second request for this site - does that indicate a better reason to possibly unblock it? (Personal interest irrelevant; I'm a half hippie and never heard of the organization, the site looks badly done but two people have said it really is offical site, it's in another language probably expalins why I haven't heard of it.)RayvnEQ (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see why this should be blacklisted, but it should, be dealt with by deblacklisting rather than whitelisting.  Deferred MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it rather depends. If it is a polemical or biased site and has been spammed, then blacklisting is not unreasonable, and whitelisting the homepage (only) would be the normal way to handle the issue of links in the article itself. Guy (Help!) 11:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Stale at this stage; lister can repost if he still wants it added. Stifle (talk) 13:19, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    gargoyles.dracandros.com

    Not sure why a TV wiki is blocked. Nothing offensive I could see. --T smitts (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some aggressive adding of the link: Special:Contributions/GDarau, it may have been blacklisted for that reason, maybe specific whitelisting of specific pages on the server is the way to go? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing else heard so closed as  Stale. --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    nepalelectionportal.org

    I really don't know why this was black-listed in the first place. nepalelectionportal.org is an interesting site, essential as reference for many articles on Nepalese politics. --Soman (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not appear blacklisted:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    well it still gets caught in the spam filter. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give a a link to the page concerned if this is still happening. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as  Stale, nothing more heard. --Herby talk thyme 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Toadie's Myspace Blog

    Link is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1839615&blogID=393290625 . The official announcement of the band releasing a new recording is big news for them and is the first place they officially announced it. This of course would help to update the toadies page on wikipedia, especially the section with information on the new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviladam (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this an official blog belonging to the band? If so, I'll whitelist it. Otherwise, we don't use blogs as references. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Stale
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 22:12, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    nefac.net

    NEFAC is one of the most prominent anarcho-communist organisations on the planet, and there should be a link in their article to their official website. On behalf of the Anarchism task force, Skomorokh 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Duplicate, see below. MER-C 09:16, 9 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    www.worldchesslinks.net

    I have also no idea why this was blacklisted. It has an enormous amount of chess related information, useful as a reference for many chess related articles. For instance the historical chess tournaments: www.worldchesslinks.net/ezq00.html , which can be used for many articles in Category:Chess competitions (such as Vienna 1882 chess tournament). Voorlandt (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About

    There is no harm in allowing a link to the about page. This is used numerous times as a reference on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and the nowiki'd link looks ridiculous on our part. Thanks. —Giggy 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What's wrong with using reliable independent sources? Self-sourced articles often fail WP:NPOV. I think it would be hard to find a site which is less likely to be reliable as a source about anything, even itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is basically the same discussion at AN, but it isn't fair to call this a self sourced article. this is an article which, frankly, is scrupulously sourced detailing a notable subject and should be allowed to do so in the same fashion as any other article on a corporation, organization or website. The limitations imposed by WP:V are sufficient to ensure that information cited only to the subject not be used excessively. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's currently being used to cite the launch date, a basic description of itself (quoted in ref 3), and the fact that it's trying to copy The Devil's Dictionary. I'd agree that using this to cite other things would go against NPOV, but these particular facts are hardly controversial. —Giggy 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if there is a problem with the POV in an article, this is the wrong way to fix it. Blacklisting the site doesn't prevent us from citing it. It just makes wikipedia look petty. We've had enough trouble building an article about ED, let's just collectively be the bigger person and treat it like just another site. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site is blacklisted due to long-term abuse and that is unlikely to change (ED is of no conceivable use as a source for an encyclopaedia, after all). This is about whether one page should be whitelisted as a source for an article. I remain entirely unconvinced that the site is capable of being honest about even the most basic facts, for example I dispute absolutely their assertion that they are modelled on sites which elevate themselves above the simply childish, something ED has historically failed to do. I've checked ED articles on subjects with which I am familiar and they contain not just distortion but blatant falsehood, so like I say I would like to know if there are reliable independent sources for the same facts, because I think those would be better in respect of this particular site. I don't trust a word they say, and for good reason. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but that has nothing to do with the spam blacklist. the site is already referenced in the article, per WP:SPS. All we are asking is for the links to not be blocked by the spam filter. This isn't about our personal feelings regarding the site's reliability, devotion to truth or maturity. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Protonk. Guy, while I certainly respect your opinion here (and in other areas) I think it might be good if another admin without the strong feelings on the subject that you may have takes a look at this. Would you object to asking a few other regulars (Herbythyme comes to mind) to take a squiz? —Giggy 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinion by Guy above this is still worded slightly antagonistically ("childish", etc.), indicating a personal dislike for the site. The About page for the site is not done "dramtically" like the other pages are; I just visited it (for the first time) and it really does do nothing other then tell about the site. If Wikipedia has an article abuot the site, it would make no sense whatsoever not to link to the site from the article. Since the home page is apparently not allowed to be linked to, this page would make a good alternative.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have firmly shelved the fact that they reportedly assert that my recently deceased father was a paedophile, I was thinking more about the shit they published about Phaedriel. Fact is, they have sown beyond any possible doubt that they care more about "lulz" than about any pretence to accuracy, and I don't think that they are likely to be any more honest about themselves than they are about anything else. which is why I would suggest that we use only what can be verified from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that an obviously satirical website posted satirical information about somebody you personally know is far from a reason to disallow it from being linked to for any reason, whatsoever, no matter how relevant. No website should be written about without including a link to the website, period. It just doesn't make sense.Rayvn (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (arbitrary indent reset)
    • Just to point out ... I checked the article, and it appears that the about page has been listed as a ref sinse mid-May sometime. It's just listed as plain-text and not linked. If it's okay to have the ref in the article, then I agree it should be whitelisted - if it's not appropriate, then the ref should be removed from the article. It may be worthwhile to open the issue for broader comment at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Deferred WP:AN. I am uncomfortable adding this in the absence of discussion before a wider audience. This page is a bit of a dark alley as Wikipedia goes. If it is still desired to whitelist this site, please open an AN thread. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.banknotes.com/HN84.JPG

    I just need it as a source for Image:1Lempira.jpg. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 21:21, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Would a non-live URL be sufficient, like the title of this section? MER-C 09:30, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Uh, I'm really dumb. Should've thought about that a long time ago. Therefore, I strike this request. Pie is good (Apple is the best) 23:22, 20 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    arcadvisor.com

    I was doing some work to include external link to the ARCAD website when I got a notice stating that the link has triggered Wikipedia spam protection filter. As a result, the spam filter blocked the website. I would like the following URLs whitelisted as they provide useful information related to electric shock, arc flash hazard protection, short circuit analysis, conductor, motor and transformer resources:

    • arcadvisor.com/index.html
    • arcadvisor.com/reference.html
    • arcadvisor.com/arcflash/arc_flash_analytic.html
    • arcadvisor.com/faq/arc_blast_tnt_equivalent.html
    • arcadvisor.com/faq/arcblast.html
    • arcadvisor.com/arcflash/ieee1584.html

    I believe following articles would benefit from the addition of these links:

    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arc_Flash
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_shock
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short_circuit
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_capacity
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symmetric_fault
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asymmetric_fault
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_faults
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maximum_prospective_short_circuit_current
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Breaking_capacity
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NFPA_70E
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IEEE_1584
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_voltage
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinitrotoluene
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pressure
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_protective_equipment
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warning_label
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuse_(electrical)
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_breaker
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistance
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_impedance
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electrical_resistivity
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transformer
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_motor
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_factor
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horse_power_(machine)
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Induction_motor
    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Synchronous_motor

    I would greatly appreciate if somebody could have a quick look on the above and unblock arcadvisor.com links. --Mykh (talk) 19:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined The reason this site was blacklisted in the first place was for canvassing. No, you still can't canvas it. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:02, 12 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


    • gazeteler.com is somehow on the spam list for wikipedia. I don't know why it is there and I don't know or care if there is an article which could link to gazeteler.com. All I know is that gazeteler.com is not a spam website and does not deserve to be listed in a spam list. Either name that section "sites we do not like" or take gazeteler.com out of that spam list. ????
      This section is for proposing that a site that has been unblocked now be reblocked. Please use the correct section. Please also sign your messages by typing ~~~~ at the end. Stifle (talk) 12:04, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.ehow.com/how_2123610_host-star-wars-marathon.html

    The above request to whitelist this site was granted; the site (which is user-edited and fails WP:RS) was used as a source for the peerless wisdom that when hosting a showing of all six Star Wars films back to back, it is advisable to provide toilet facilities and food. I am sure we must have a WP:NOSHITSHERLOCK guideline somewhere! Anyway, I removed the material sourced to the unreliable source, so the whitelist entry is no longer necessary. Guy (Help!) 22:00, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Yuwie, and any other infrequently-spammed site with legitimate usuages

    I was trying to add my Yuwie page as a way of contacting me (on user page), and I got the message back saying it is blacklisted. Many sites block this domain, and it is very annoying. Since MySpace (which I also added) was not blocked, Yuwie has no reason to be blocked. If necessary I think you can change the block to only include the referral link, which is r.yuwie.com/username. Yuwie referral links are sometimes sent to e-mails and stuff for spammy reasons, but very infrequently. There are many legitimate usages, besides user pages, for example a link to a celebrity's page under external links, or as a reference because the blog page hosts maybe a list of links to reliable sites about a particular subject. Because of the nature of Yuwie and the fact that people want their blogs read as often as possible, and want as many people on their freindslist as possible, people often put things in their blogs such as YouTube videos (often referenceable, such as a news story or an example of a notable event) (YouTube videos don't always have a way to find the video on youtube.com, and not all videos posted in Yuwie blogs actually come from YouTube), Copies of articles that are obviously written by say a newspaper or a professional (but without links in the blog, meaning the blog has to be linked), or personal opinions (example: Supporters of Barack Obama sometimes say that XXXXXXXXX [ref]ref-blog.yuwie.com/a-yuwie-blog-about-Obama-good-with-647-comments-that-agree[endref]. I believe it is unfair (not only on this site, but on all websites) that Yuwie cannot be linked to for legitimate purposes just because a few people used to SPAM it sometimes 6 months ago (happens a lot less frequently now because people have realized it isn't good money anyway, especially those who would spam). If a user is putting their referral link or SPAMming with this site, the edit they are making probably has other reasons to be deleted anyway, and the user will probably be banned etc., making blocking the site semi-unnecessary if it can also be used legitimately. I see similar requests for Squidoo above and believe it also follows the model, though Squidoo has a lot more potential then Yuwie to be used abusively because it has many more user pages that would still be blocked if they were outside Squidoo. I am not sure if Squidoo has a specific URL either that can be blocked, as I said about Yuwie IMO it would be more prudent to block "r.yuwie.com/.....".

    Also, the phrase in the title "infrequently-spammed" is intended to mean, "SPAMmed, but infrequently," and is not intended to be sarcastic, or a similar word. To say something about sites that occassionally-but-not-usually-spammed in the title would ahve been too long, and to say "similar sites" would not have been descriptive or even universally interpreted the same way.

    Please notify me of responses to this article in whatever way will send notifications to my e-mail address or website inbox.RayvnEQ (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • UM, exactly how is linking to 647 people who have independently agree with a stated opinion original research, when the only thing being mentioned is the fact that the opinion exists, rather then the factuality of the opinion? Last time I checked, the fact that 637 people have an opinion about something is indeed proof that the opinion exists. Also, why would a "valid reason" to not block a page be needed in the first place when 5 other websites which are exactly the same as the one in question are unblocked? But even though "valid reasons" are not necessary in this case, three valid reasons ARE given, as well as an alternative link to block would which accomplish the same purpose as the current block.Rayvn (talk) 21:58, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • If it's significant then there will be independent coverage. If there is no independent coverage, it is not significant. 647 people is just under two floors of my 44-storey building, not a big number without the indispensable context of independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 23:36, 19 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    russianfootage.com

    please remove from the black list to update stock footage section in wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_footage
    I was editing the page on Stock footage and included Russian Stock Footage Library link russianfootage.com, this people provide archival motion imagery, stock footage and research services from Russia for documentary producers who are willing to license video from state Russian archives, other Russian video libraries.
    Please help me to unblock the web site russianfootage.com Somehow it is blacklisted now. It deserves to be added to Wikipedia stock footage section here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stock_footage Thank you in advace


    Hello , thanks you for your prompt reply russianfootage.com link will contribute to Wikipedia stock footage page giving an information where to refer in Russia if someone is willing to find Russian professional video, Would you please help me to navigate where I can refer to, an administrator notice board or somewhere else?

    Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard. Stifle (talk) 14:56, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    malayalam.galatta.com

    This is a prominent site on Malayalam cinema with numerous news reports. Please make sure the site is not blacklisted by mistake and I request you to unblock it--Anoopkn (talk) 08:31, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    *no Declined No reason or examples of where it would be used given. Ads and popups galore, in addition to one of the banners originating from an attack site (according to Firefox). OhNoitsJamie Talk 08:44, 7 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    *The reason was that I wanted to add a point on a controversy surrounding a malayalam film, Twenty:20 (film). The news appears here: malayalam.galatta.com/entertainment/malayalam/livewire/id/B_and_C_class_theatres_against_Twenty_20_19554.html (Add http://). I couln't find any other major websites with the news as well.--Anoopkn (talk) 20:30, 24 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    I believe the notification page should be a banner at the top of the edit page, or of a manner that when we hit the "back" button, our text is still there. It may have taken a long time to write the text, especially since we have to use a strange coding mechanism which takes more time to implement then most coding systems, or it may contain writing that we would not be able to duplicate if we had to type it a second time. Just because a site is blacklisted does not mean we have made a negative contribution worthy of deletion in we have tried to use (such as in the case I just mentioned for myself of my user page), and we should be able to edit and just remove or change the link, or save our text to a notepad file for later usage if we don't want to include the edit without the link.

    When I used the "add new section" link which is not present on most pages (so, assumed it to be the right place), it put my listing all the way at the bottom instead of here where I think it is supposed to be.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Most decent browsers will conserve the text in the form when you hit the back button. Stifle (talk) 12:05, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So? There are many users who don't have a large choice of browsers, due to accessibility issues, or resource issues which prevent them from using "decent" browsers, due to old hardware or poorly supported operating systems. While I don't believe that this is proper forum for technical issues such as RayvnEQ's, your response, and more specifically, your edit summary ("use a decent browser") seem rather dismissive. -Seidenstud (talk) 20:27, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Opera runs on just about any hardware capable of rendering a Wikipedia page. It preserves text when you click back, and it's free (as in beer). I don't think it's a stretch to expect people to use a decent internet browser to edit Wikipedia. Orpheus (talk) 23:02, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    We're clearly getting off-topic here, but, for the record, Opera does not run on CLI-based shells, whose browsers can typically render wikipedia fine.. It is not a stretch to expect people on a free encyclopedia to not dismiss users with problems with "use a decent browser."-Seidenstud (talk) 06:47, 26 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether or not that's the case, we're getting off-track here — you need to place your request at bugzilla. Stifle (talk) 11:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    UM, I was most likely using FireFox, since I believe everything to do with Wikipedia was on the laptop I owned for like a week, and whether or not text is restored when you hit the back button has absolutely nothing to do with what I posted.Rayvn (talk) 22:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    That's fine, but you still need to use bugzilla to report your issue. Stifle (talk) 14:21, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My URL is blocked - why I am not allowed to repair my fault?

    On 20 Dec my URL was blocked and all links to it were deleted. I made the fault that I added too many links to my own website. I did not know that that is not allowed. I proposed to delete my links myself but I cannot do it because there are no links anymore, logic. I run a non-commercial, educational website: realgems.org (I cannot write the complete URL because it is blocked). I never wanted to spam Wikipedia: Since JULY 08 I added links to my special pages without problem. No deletion, nothing. Now, on 20th Dec, all links were blocked. Reason: spamming. I wrote to someone from Wikipedia who is (perhaps besides others) responsible for this blockade. Finally he told me that he doesn't know how to help me. Then I wrote to a Wiki admin who added a lot of links to other websites, as I did. These links were not regarded as spam, surely because these sites are not his sites. No problem for me but he suddenly cancelled the talk. Now I don't know how to proceed now. I even offered him to become a Wiki member, re additions to various pages ("projects"). No chance. Another problem is that many of my visitors have added links to my site on various Wiki pages, from America to Asia. Their links were also deleted. I find that not very adequate because a lot of the international public (of Wikipedia) seems to be interested in my website, and I made just the fault to add too many links to my own site. Please help me so that at least their links will be re-installed. Then, as I proposed, I will become a valued Wiki supporter / editor. Is that a fair proposal? I think so.

    Kind regards, Redberyl Redberyl (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 

       The URL isn't blocked directly on Wikipedia, it's blacklisted at m:Spam blacklist, which is a central blacklist used by all Mediawiki projects (which Wikipedia is just one of many). The discussion and justification for this is documented at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#realgems.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Dear Barek, thanks for your quick response. But what shall I conclude from your message? What can I do? What can you do so that a well-respected website can be reached also on Wikipedia again? Redberyl (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 

       As it's not blacklisted here, the only way to remove the blacklist would be to address the issue at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed removals; the only thing that could be done directly at Wikipedia would be to request whitelisting on this specific project at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites_to_unblock). However, I should mention that in both cases, requests by site owners are rarely granted without support from established editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


    Dear Barek, I'm very thankful for your supportive messages. O.K. I will try to put my humble request on the Wiki pages you mentioned.

    Btw I cannot send an email to your address. They came back as undeliverable.

    dzinkuije, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


    Discussion

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

    Please be advised that on actor suriya sivakumars biography there got a link that has nothing to do with his official website link Ive removed it and wanted to add his official website link http://www.suriya -o nline.com/ but it seems it has been blacklisted0 This issue is going on for MORE THAN A YEAR so can anyone please tell us why it has been blacklisted and do the necessary to UPDATE his biography page with the relevant LINK????

    Thanks gaya ps I cant even mention that link in the discussion page coz it has been balcklisted??? this is ridiculous 88.166.12.67 (talk) 15:57, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other projects with active whitelists

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=260552762"