MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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:

The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
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|291656055#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:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

This section is for proposing that a website be whitelisted; add new entries at the bottom of this section. Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (google.ca, not http://www.google.ca). Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate Indicator then archived.

Instructions to requesters:

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.
Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.
Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

If the above information is not provided expect your request to be declined.

Kippreport.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Kippreport is a daily news website based in the Middle east and provide interesting fact about this region. They are not using press release and are creating their own content. It's a platform were people are able to talk about the problem of the region. The website was block because somebody from the team make a mistake trying to add some of the page of Kippreport.com has reference and didn't follow the rules of Wikipedia. Now the content of this website is great an can really be taken as a reference in some way like the one listed in the link section. If I take this example kippreport.com/kipp/etisalat/, I think it's interesting to add has reference for the Etisalat page

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

UAE, Flickr in this case, people from the middle east because there is study about them, company from the middle east like Rani, EPPCO, Etisalat, Du, Emirates,....

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

1. kippreport.com/ 2. kippreport.com/kipp/2009/03/16/flickr-is-banned/ 3. kippreport.com/kipp/2008/11/23/dont-stop-the-press/ 4. kippreport.com/kipp/etisalat/

80.227.53.134 (talk) 07:56, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to remove this from the blacklist, as it seems like a reasonable source. I'd like another opinion first though, so can whoever sees this next chip in? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

this provides further information on why it was blacklisted (last section). Stifle (talk) 11:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I recommend not removing or whitelisting any of this until an established editor requests we do so. Here's the background:

Additional deleted page:

User:Kippreport

Additional account:

Kippreport (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)

Cross-wiki spam:

w:fr:Spécial:Contributions/80.227.53.134

Since at least 4 usernames + an IP persistently spammed the link in spite of multiple requests to stop, I am pessimistic this company won't abuse us in the future. The requesting IP was one of the same accounts spamming the link. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:09, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

blog.hubpages.com

HubPages is a popular web site that allows anyone to write articles called "hubs".

I am a member of the staff of HubPages and I can assure you that we take spam very seriously. If you would like to report to use that one of our pages is violating the terms of Wikipedia, we would appreciate the feedback and take the appropriate actions.

For example, we have a strict rule that users cannot have two external links to the same domain in their article unless the domain is a well known one such as wikipedia.org.

Independently of whether you add HubPages.com to your whitelist, I would respectfully request that you add the url "blog.hubpages.com" This is the url used officially by the HubPages staff. If you take a look at the content there, you will see that it is not spam.

It consists of official HubPages communications, feature details, and snapshots into the life of hubbers and hubpage staff.

Wikipedia currently has an article on HubPages. That article cannot link the relevant blog articles that can help to clarify the relationship of hubs vs blogs etc. If you check it out, there is a reference without a link because blog.hubpages.com is not allowed.

Here is the link that I believe would be useful to add: blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/

If you feel that blog.hubpages.com is not appropriate for wikipedia links, it would really help to know the reasons why. I will take this as positive feedback and respect your decision.

At HubPages, our goal is very similar to Wikipedia and Wikia. We seek to aggregate high quality of content that will be of interest and of value to our readers.

Thanks very much for consideration of this request. Feel free to contact me. My contact information is readily available at hubpages.com/help/about if you have any questions about this request.

Cheers,

-Larry

Not done Please read our conflict of interest policy. Hubpages is blacklisted for the same reason as many other "publish yourself and make money!" sites are; conflict-of-interest and reliable sources issues. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jamie,

Thanks for the response. I appreciate the link to Wikipedia's policies.

Based on your response, I will modify my request. I agree with you that it is problematic to include HubPages in the whitelist. At best, it probably makes sense to request approval for specific articles only.

In light of this, I would request only that you allow the link to the blog.hubpages.com url on the HubPages article. I added the link in an effort to clarify the difference between a blog and a hub. I would ask you to take a look at the blog entry and the HubPages article.

If you feel that this link is conflict of interest in that it overly promotes HubPages as opposed to clarifying the HubPages article, just let me know and I will remove the link to the blog entry. I added it solely with the purpose of clarifying the article.

Thanks very much for considering this request,

-Larry —Preceding unsigned comment added by Larryfreeman (talk • contribs) 01:09, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

epillpharma.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

The above site is a Bio Medical firm official wesite, the firms' name is E-Pill. This company has developed a novel oral drug delivery platform that replaces drug delivery by injection. Its establisher is Yossi Gross, an innovator and entrepreneur. I would like to add this link as part of the list of companies he has established based on his patents.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

The entry of Yossi Gross is planned to be using this link as part of listing his patents and firms he initiated

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yossi_Gross Thank you very much. Marjieruthhadad (talk) 19:37, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

digitpress.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

It contains interviews with game designers which may be used as article references.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

Cube Quest

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

digitpress.com/library/interviews/interview_paul_allen_newell.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.115.89.235 (talk) 17:51, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Approved Requests

TourMyCountry.com

Hello, I'd like to be able to include:

http://www.tourXXXmyXXXcountry.com/austria/theresianum-diplomatic-academy.htm

(remove XXX's to read; I put them because otherwise I can't even post this!)

Reason: the article Gottfried van Swieten mentions the Theresianum as where van Swieten was schooled. The web page cited gives a pretty good history of the school, not otherwise available AFAIK.

Note: I don't know why TourMyCountry.com was blacklisted, so if you need to turn down this request I will understand.

Thanks for your help, Opus33 (talk) 18:44, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This report explains why it was blacklisted. I am inclined to whitelist the requested link unless I hear a reason not to in the next day or two. Stifle (talk) 14:04, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Done Stifle (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stifle. Opus33 (talk) 22:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

vbs.tv

vbs.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com VBS.tv should be linking to the official site. The domain was spammed, but whitelisting for this use should be acceptable. Thanks — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 19:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would it be OK to whitelist \bwww\.vbs\.tv/\b ? Stifle (talk) 17:36, 25 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I plan to (only) link http://www.vbs.tv from VBS.tv (& remove the misleading links). — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 21:37, 28 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nope, does not work, this would enable everything after it, as the final \b is here the word boundary of a possible beginning further url (after the unescaped '/', which should be a '\/'). Is there an index.htm or an about.htm we can use? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:18, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You don't need to escape /s, the system does that automatically. Awaiting further reply from Mike.lifeguard. Stifle (talk) 10:30, 30 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.vbs.tv/about.php would be acceptable. — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 14:18, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that perhaps http://www.vbs.tv/about.php may apropriate considering the overwhelming evidence of abuse
:Accounts

Related

viceland.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
vice-recordings.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
vicerecords.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
heavymetalinbaghdad.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
theraveonettes.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

redirect site

vice.tv: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

--Hu12 (talk) 20:03, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I did say it was spammed, didn't I? 9.9 Can we get this done one way or another please? — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 13:14, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fine,

Done. If you were that bothered you could have done it yourself :) (no need to reply) Stifle (talk) 15:29, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You know I'm not allowed to :D — Mike.lifeguard | ^@en.wb 00:31, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suite101.com "Safety - Is it more important than Authenticity?"

Explain why the site should be whitelisted. Safety is obviously an important consideration which often weighs agains authenticity in historical reenactment, but it is rarely discussed, and even less frequently written about.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. Certainly Authenticity (reenactment), and possibly other articles dealing with historical reenactment.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. Probbably the best is suite101.com/article.cfm/historical_reenactment/58426/1 Another option is suite101.com/print_article.cfm/historical_reenactment/58426 which displays the entire article in a single window.

Requested by cmadler (talk) 14:40, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done Stifle (talk) 08:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lenr-canr.org

This site is globally blacklisted. This request is occasioned by a single page: http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf is hosted under plausible claim of permission from author and publisher (that issue has been thoroughly discussed at Talk:Martin Fleischmann and elsewhere). The purpose of linking to it is to provide a convenience link for readers of Cold fusion and for editors working on the article. The paper is very important in the history of Cold fusion, being a more thorough second report, published in 1990, than the original 1989 publication, which was famously sketchy. I am unaware of any other site hosting the paper for free access and under a plausible claim of permission.

I see no reason not to whitelist the entire site here on en.wikipedia, there was no linkspam here in the first place, but, short of such a whitelisting, please whitelist the single link (and this request may then be closed without further fuss from me, excepting other whitelist requests as the need arises). Thanks. --Abd (talk) 15:01, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelisting the entire site is most definitely

Declined (see WP:LINKVIO). Can you please give us a non-TLDR explanation of on what information the "plausible claim of permission from author and publisher" is based? If it's limited to "some WP editors think so", then I am afraid that will be declined too. Some offwiki proof would be necessary I think. Stifle (talk) 17:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tl:dr? Moi?

Oh, okay, if you insist: see the extensive discussion of the lenr-canr link at Talk:Martin Fleischmann, where copyvio was extensively considered. It's not just a few editors, it's consensus. You might also see the extensive discussion of blacklisting at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Abd and JzG/Workshop. Thanks again. --Abd (talk) 21:41, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Stifle, what is the basis of your claim that WP:LINKVIO applies? This is the evidence that it doesn't, beside all the opinions that have been expressed: They explicitly claim permission from authors and publishers. They host only a fraction of the papers they would prefer to host. In the original delisting request here, closed only because of the meta blacklisting, evidence was presented that lenr-canr.org had permission for what they host, including an email from Rothwell, the site manager. They are highly visible and stable. Another site which hosts some important papers that they do not host (and which was just delisted here), newenergytimes.com, does so under claim of fair use, and I've interpreted this as disallowing links to that site (for those papers) because suspicion of copyvio is reasonable; they may be able to get away with a claim of fair use, but lenr-canr.org is claiming explicit permission, and they have been doing so for years, and they are widely publicized (in reliable source, in fact) as a library of documents on the topic of low energy nuclear reactions. Enough? --Abd (talk) 02:45, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One more point. I asked for a specific page whitelisting, or, in the alternative, the whole site. To what did your decline refer? --Abd (talk) 02:47, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I dispute the "plausible claim of permission from author and publisher", as it comes from lenr-canr.org and not either the author or publisher - the holders of the copyright. Of course the site itself would claim it isn't infringing copyright. Verbal chat 08:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted, this issue has been very extensively discussed and the conclusion has been that a claim of permission from a notable web site is adequate. It doesn't make sense that we have to run an off-wiki confirmation process for every convenience link; this idea would make adding convenience links so cumbersome that few would be added. It's simply not true that a violating site will claim permission as some sort of obvious move, and the case of NET was mentioned precisely for that reason. NET doesn't claim permission, probably because they can't get it. They claim fair use. Lenr-canr doesn't host those same papers and, in fact, when NET cites a paper as prominent, it typically links to lenr-canr.org instead of hosting it itself; it only hosts papers, we may readily conclude, when permission can't be obtained, either by them or in general. I'm willing to track down permission for a single paper, if needed, but I want an understanding that this isn't going to be demanded for each and every link. --Abd (talk) 11:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The decline relates to "I see no reason not to whitelist the entire site here on en.wikipedia" only. Stifle (talk) 09:35, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced enough of the issue to approve this request, but also not convinced enough on the other side to decline it. I am deferring to another admin. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Stifle. That avoids WP:BIGMESS, a guideline that's not even written. --Abd (talk) 11:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.lenr-canr.org/acrobat/Fleischmancalorimetr.pdf is a copy of "Martin Fleischmann, Stanley Pons, Mark W. Anderson, Lian Jun Li and Marvin Hawkins, Calorimetry of the palladium-deuterium-heavy water system, Journal of Electroanalytical Chemistry, 1990, 287, 293-348, http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0022-0728(90)80009-U. I am whitelisting this, consider

Added. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:22, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Beetstra, this time was a little bit easier. --Abd (talk) 01:48, 9 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

lenr-canr.org (2)

http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/KUERinterview.htm

(totally unrelated to request above) A transcript of a radio interview, for Michael McKubre. It can be used to source his postdoctoral research fellowship under mentoring of Martin Fleischmann. Also has some info of his funding, which is a relevant matter due to the funding problems in his field of expertise (cold fusion). --Enric Naval (talk) 19:23, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It would seem better to cite the original recording, no? Stifle (talk) 17:14, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I will link both the audio recording and its transcript. The text transcript is much better for people who is not proficient in English language, and it can be verified more easily. (I'll also listen to the recording to cite the time when the declarations are done) --Enric Naval (talk) 17:42, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This seems a much more reasonable request than that above, and barring a better source I would support this individual whitelisiting. Verbal chat 08:52, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since Stifle has deferred to other admins in the "lenr-canr.org" section above, can some other admin take a look and do the whitelisting or deny it? --Enric Naval (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to whitelist this one as well. Could we have a link to the radio interview as well (if there is an online version of that available), just for future reference. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:10, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

http://audio.kuer.org:8000/file/rw112702.mp3 P.D.: Argh, it's broken, and the archive.org copy is also broken >.< --Enric Naval (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have already

Added this, could an admin add a permanent link to this entry when the radio interview link is presented, just to have the log complete? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Now that is funny, how do we check if the audio recording is the same as the original? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:33, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, since the charge of alteration was made against lenr-canr.org in the past, I need to take this question seriously. Unless there is a reason to think that a site is altering documents, i.e., taking original text and changing it in some significant way, we routinely accept copies as accurate, just as we accept edits citing obscure and unobtainable books on the word of an editor that the source contains what the editor claims it contains, and until and unless that editor is impeached for misrepresenting sources, we assume good faith and even allow, normally, for some level of error. Lenr-canr.org has built a reputation as a library of documents on cold fusion. If they were found to be altering documents, it would be devastating to that reputation. The previous charges of alteration were not alteration, they involved a case (unusual, actually, for lenr-canr.org) where Rothwell had prepended an editorial comment on the document, a U.S. government report, the 1989 DoE review of cold fusion. There was no alteration, there was framing, a totally different matter. I've cited text to an organization that prepended comment when there was no other source for the text; in the particular case, lenr-canr.org had provided a link to their source, and that other source didn't have editorial comment, but only the name of the web site (which was apparently hosting the document because of their skeptical POV). Editorial consensus was to use the less editorialized copy, which was a proper decision, and it wasn't controversial. But the "alters documents" charge was then repeated over and over, was still being raised this year. What could be done if someone really wants to check is to ask McKubre. Is it worth it? I doubt it. By the way, Dirk, thanks for this one also. --Abd (talk) 01:16, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome. It is not that I am afraid of editorialised interviews, wrong interpretations etc., it would be good to be able to check. Linking to mp3's is not the best practice (bandwidth, availability of codecs etc., unsuitable for deaf people), though here it is the proper source and it certainly should be mentioned in the reference. Adding the transcipt would make the availability wider (also suitable for deaf people, etc.) and I would encourage that. It is just too bad the original seems to be gone, and written transcriptions might be less informative than the original (loss of intonations e.g.). I think it is fine this way. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. An inferior source is better than no source, as long as the problems with the source do not rise to the point that the harm outweighs the good. for example, had there been no other copy of that editorially framed document on lenr-canr.org, we could have linked to it, in preference to no link. That's explicit in the guideline, which establishes preference for clean documents, no framing. And preference for linking to neutral sites. Etc. --Abd (talk) 18:31, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just a point about the changed document problem: Jed didn't change the original text, but he did modify the original pdf to add his own editorial at the top, and he linked to his modified pdf instead of linking to the unedited original pdf that was also available in his website (thus the complaints that he was linking to promote his POV instead of linking to provide neutral access to documents for the sake of neutrally improving the article) I have never seen any complaint or indication that Jed had actually falsified any document in his website, so it's unlikely that the transcript has been falsified.

Given this, I think it's reasonable to assume that this transcript would contain at most innocent errors in transcription. (and, as Dirk points out, we lose information like entonation, pauses in speech, and such). Given past experience, the only concern would be that the page contained some framing, with introductions that interpreted the linked sources like in his DOE review page http://www.lenr-canr.org/Collections/DoeReview.htm, but that's not the case for this specific link, and should be checked in a case-by-case basis because not all pages in his website have introductions.

(Note: the link that we use for DOE 1989 also has an editorial, but the link goes to a neutral title and copyright page, the editorial is in a different page and you have to choose to click in a link labelled "NCAS Introduction" instead of clicking in a link labelled "CONTENTS". And, yeah, it's not an ideal situation.). --Enric Naval (talk) 09:06, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

losethegame.com

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

Site is obviously relevant to an article on The Game (mind game), and is the most popular website about The Game. In fact, it's the first relevant result on a Google search for "the game". Because of this, I think it should be added to the article's External Links section.

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

The Game (mind game), Jonty Haywood

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

losethegame.com/

--Zarel (talk) 07:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelisting the whole domain would again give people the possibility to make others lose the game by including the link in questionable places (as the abuse that was done before the blacklisting to e.g. school pages and George Bush), a practice that is (was?) encouraged by the site. Please find a suitable, specific page on the site (e.g. an about.htm), which is suitable for whitelisting. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:40, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm only asking for it to be whitelisted on the The Game (mind game) and Jonty Haywood - I thought it was possible to whitelist the domain on some specific articles, while still keeping it blacklisted on other articles? Or do I request that kind of exception somewhere else? I mean, whitelisting the domain everywhere would just be removing it from the blacklist, and I'm not proposing that at all.

Furthermore, is it possible to whitelist only the home page at losethegame.com/ ? Alternatively, losethegame.com/index.htm should work. Their closest thing to an "About" page is losethegame.com/faq.htm , if you feel that's a better choice. --Zarel (talk) 21:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I like the plan of whitelisting the /index.htm. That should still hamper the general trick of replacing a school-page with the main domain. XLinkBot can keep an eye on it for some time, if this re-enables abuse, maybe the abusefilter will have to do something (actually, I'll do that as well).

OK, I am going to add \blosethegame\.com\/index\.htm\b, only for use on The Game (mind game) and Jonty Haywood (other pages should be impossible now anyway). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:36, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

meenaonthenet.com

This is the (apparently) official site of the Indian actress Meena, aka Meena Durairaj. It is hosted on galatta.com, which is blacklisted. Can meenaonthenet.com be whitelisted for her article? Fences and windows (talk) 22:20, 1 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That site is blacklisted at meta. If you want it removed, you'll have to ask there.

Defer to Global blacklist Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(And bearing in mind the reasons for the blacklisting, if you want to request a single page be whitelisted here, that would be OK, but you'll need to nominate a page.) Stifle (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Deciphering the reasons for blacklisting from the report on meta is beyond the capacity of ordinary mortals; the blacklisting was a mass blacklisting of alleged clients of the host, gallata.com, apparently. A specific page for Meena is http://www.galatta.com/actress/meena/main.html. Even though this is meta blacklisted, that's no reason for denying whitelisting here, by itself. We do not have authority over meta and they do not have authority over us. --Abd (talk) 00:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If we can whitelist the link Abd mentions for this one article without bothering meta, that'd be good. I have got used to the arcane workings of Wikipedia, but meta is an unknown to me. Fences and windows (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problems with whitelisting that page, as I said. But I couldn't whitelist without knowing which page to permit.

Done

On a side note, the statement that "[meta does] not have authority over us" may be debatable. Stifle (talk) 09:40, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not debate it here. Thanks, Stifle. --Abd (talk) 11:19, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Fences and windows (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

eu-football.info

Please, remove this site from blacklist, because it has useful and detailed information. You may delete all earlier submited links, although all them were added to related pages... User, who submited them, didn`t know that it is not good. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pleaser09 (talk • contribs) 13:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This was blacklisted at meta due to spamming (see m:User:COIBot/XWiki/eu-football.info). How can we be sure it won't be spammed again, and also what Wikipedia article would benefit from links to this site? Stifle (talk) 15:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That user who spammed will not spam again. I hope others too.

This site may be useful for that users who want to get additional detailed information about played matches of the national football team. This unique detailed information contains line-ups with full names of players and their clubs. Users will be thankful to Wikipedia for this link to additional statistics.

Please, unlist at least one link eu-football.info/_list.php?id=123 at the page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Estonia_national_football_team,

although there is detailed info about all european national football teams on this site.

Pleaser09 (talk) 07:31, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK,

Done. Stifle (talk) 13:32, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you! Pleaser09 (talk) 15:42, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Requests

filmtaka.com

Site should be whitelisted because.

Filmtaka.com is a daily based news website, who inform you celebrity gossip, latest movie news, upcoming casting calls details. the site is very helpful for those who want to start career or just start there career on Hollywood movies. we provide direct contact details of casting calls agents, directors, artist so strugglers can contact them directly.

site is blacklisted because one of my administrator try to add external links in wikipedia pages. My administrator is new for wikipedia who did not aware the wikipedia rule and unable to follow the rules. Filmtaka.com is blacklisted for last 3 - 4 months, i hope the punishment of the site will be over. --122.163.42.91 (talk) 19:30, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

1. filmtaka.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.163.40.240 (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This page is for requesting one or two links from a blacklisted site to be permitted. If you want to remove a site from the blacklist entirely, you need MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals. However, the request is unlikely to be approved if it does not come from an established user. Stifle (talk) 14:07, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, and Declined. Stifle (talk) 09:31, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Specific page of ezinearticles.com

I would like to request a whitelist of http:// ezinearticles.com/?PSP-Blue-Screen-of-Death---Simple-Way-to-Banish-it-For-Good&id=2152154 (remove space after http://) — Supuhstar * § 14:54, 10 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am inclined to grant this request and will do so unless I see a reason not to in the next few days. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

None of these ezinearticles are reliable sources -- they're self-published pieces used for SEO purposes by their authors. Here are previous discussions:

Here's a sample of the 860 ezinearticles that particular author has created (from http: //ezinearticles.com/?expert=Ashish_K_Arora):

2 Remarkable Tricks to Copy PS3 Games Without Headaches
3 Absolutely Essential Facts When Making Reliable Xbox 360 Game Backup Disks
4 Top Tips to Backup PS2 Games With Amazing Ease
5 Proven Tips to Track Cell Phone Numbers in Double Quick Time
A Sure Shot Way to Fix Xbox 360 Red Ring
Acne Home Cures - 5 Sure Fire Ways to Glowing Skin
Copy PS2 Games - 3 Simple Steps to Protect Your Investment
Easy Way to Learn Spanish - Learning Spanish Simplified For You
Gold Farming - 4 Top Secrets to Make Huge Amounts of Gold Exposed
Healthy Homemade Dog Food - 7 Simple Ways to Make Healthy Dog Food in a Flash
How to Solve PS3 Blinking Red Light Problem?
How to Choose the Best Chicken Coop Building Plans
Ironic Ways to Get Rid of Rosacea
Lose 10 Pounds a Week - Top 5 Techniques That Work Like Charm
Online Soccer Betting - 3 Amazingly Simple Tips For Making a Fortune
Poker Strategy Guide - 3 Tried and Tested Tips to Make You a Guaranteed Winner
Property Investment Advice - 3 Top Tips to Become a Successful Property Investor
Quick Income Blueprint Review
Save Money While Playing - Always Copy Xbox Game Disks
Simple Key Notes on How to Cure Gout
Soccer Betting Tips - 5 Amazing Tips Revealed For the First Time
Some of the Best Football Betting Advice
Stunning Tips on Getting Rid of Moles
Sure Shot Tips to Ovarian Cysts Treatment
The Best Solutions to Learn How to Hypnotize People
Top 4 Striking Ways to Cure Ringing Ears
Top Known Solutions For Excessive Head Sweating
Top Ten Solutions to Get Rid of Hemorrhoids
Top Tips to Stop Teeth Grinding
Treat Male Yeast Infections in a Natural Way
Tricks on How to Get Your Ex Boyfriend Back
Tried and Tested Ways For a Natural Cure For Insomnia
US Citizenship Test - The Best Strategy to Tackle it Successfully
Vegetable Garden Design - Variety of Choices Available
Want a Renewed Life? 6 Tips on How Can I Grow Taller
Want to Feel Confident? Cool Tips on How to Lose Weight Quickly
Ways and Means to Decrease Underarm Perspiration
Weight Loss Post Pregnancy - Reclaim Your Body
What Should Plans For a Chicken Coop Contain?
Wind Generated Power - The Easy Way to Produce It

I've got nothing against this guy and there are no indications that he has ever spammed us (although many ezinearticles authors did). Nevertheless, I don't see how this article meets the requirements of the Reliable Sources Guideline. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, A. B.

Declined Stifle (talk) 20:39, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

www.whale.to

This site seems to collect information and interviews from around the internet and as such should not be blacklisted itself. Whether one disagrees with the opinions or not on the site is not relevant imo since it is basically a news service and would be similar to blacklisting a newspaper that reported topics that some found uninteresting or even included bad reports about oneself (there is a page critiquing wikipedia on the general site).

With this in mind I thought it would be a good idea to have a basic external link to a short bio page with an interview (video) with the person associated with a wiki page. The link I'd like to add is www.whale.to/vaccines/scheibner.html for including in the associated article Viera Scheibner. The link is both brief and informative about the subject person, and appears fair and respectful reporting. thanks. sunja (talk) 05:36, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no reason given for the blacklisting and I have requested clarification on that. Meanwhile, I am inclined to whitelist the requested link and will do so in a few days unless I hear a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

A random sampling of pages from 2007:

whale.to/m/map.html "Medical Mind Control"
- "The methods used by Allopathic Monopoly to suppress the truth. Mostly propaganda---lies, hypnotism and Fearmongering. Aka Mind Control"
whale.to/w/nat.html "Natural Healing"
- "80% of my patients were well just after doing my thorough bowel cleansing program."
whale.to/a/medical_mafia.html "The Medical Mafia"
- "The worldwide Elite (Boss) of Allopathy. Aka The Drug Trust, Medical Monopoly, Cartel or Industry. Think IG Farben and Medical Fascism. Only the top people in Allopathy know the whole truth on Allopathic medicine, and covert-vaccine agendas."
whale.to/a/wikipedia.html
- "The Great Lie of Wikipedia: "the....encyclopedia that anyone can edit.""

More whale.to-related stuff of varying degrees of relevance:

User talk:Whaleto :

User talk page history

I was not involved with all this controversy -- I'm just passing along the history. I suggest posting a brief note at WP:ANI apprising the broader community of this request.

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:11, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The requested URL links to:

www.whale.to/vaccines/viera_scheibner.html:
- "This was taken from Wikipedia. The Whale editor created that page to her as you can see in the history page. The Allopathic editors tried to delete her page. and you can see their links to AMA shill quackwatch and other sites attacking her."

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:17, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is one of those types of sites for which very little positive can be said. Conspiracy theories, extreme fringe POV, hatemongering, etc.. It's a classic example of the worst types of sites, sites which are eminently eligible for blacklisting. I can only think of a few others that would be more eligible for blacklisting. The only legitimate use for such a site would be in an article about itself, and it's so bad and unreliable that such an article would probably be deleted pretty quickly. It is listed at User:Tom harrison/BADCITES, among other sites that should be blacklisted. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:05, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Not done as source is of highly questionable reliability. Stifle (talk) 20:40, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

kinbacon.org

KinbaCon is the first European Convention dedicated exclusively to the Japanese art of erotic bondage. There are similar Conventions such ShibariCon and BoundCon, but their sites are not blacklisted. This year KinbaCon will be at the first time, in Lviv (Ukraine), on 23-24 May. Official KinbaCon website fully translated into 7 different languages (English, German, French, Spanish, Polish, Russian, Ukrainian), that more visitors can read the info about Convention and can visit it. That's why we've created KinbaCon page on Wikipedia also on 7 different languages and for what have been blacklisted as spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by OpenBDSM (talk • contribs) 20:42, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can't find any page called KinbaCon here, so

Not done as there is no indication as to what page you plan to use the image on. Stifle (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up: this domain was blacklisted on Meta-Wiki and its removal was discussed today at:

meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#kinbacon.org (permanent link)

Here's the original Meta report:

meta:User:COIBot/XWiki/kinbacon.org

I declined to delist the domain based on OpenBDSM's request but left open the possibility if our regular editors subsequently see a need for it.^[1][2][3]

--A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 03:14, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

This is not good why not allow my link

Which link? Stifle (talk) 09:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

This section is for requests to remove sites from the whitelist. Removed sites will be blocked again (unless they have also been removed from the blacklist). Completed requests will be archived

Troubleshooting and problems

This section is for comments related to problems with the whitelist (such as incorrect syntax or entries not being allowed). This is not the section to request that an entry be listed or unlisted (see above). Completed requests will be archived

Not sure if this is the right place, but I tried tagging an article with being a copyvio of http://entertainment-indianetzone-com/... using subst:copyvio, and got a rejection. This seems like a bug. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 07:56, 3 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The spam filter blocked a link I was adding in a discussion page. Fair enough, but in doing so destroyed an hours worth of edits, which I could not reload or go back to as they had "timed out". Bad show. Wiredrabbit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

I agree with Wiredrabbit's comment above. Isn't there some way to accept Talk Page edits but just break the link? cmadler (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Not at the moment. I agree that presenting the text submitted (same way as an edit conflict) would help, though. I'll see about raising a bugzilla. Most decent browsers will keep the text in the textarea as edited if you hit the back button, though. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Bugzilla:9416 deals with this. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

This section is for discussion about this talk page itself. Requests should not be added here.

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)[reply]

Other projects with active whitelists

What are you doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svtuition (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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]

HosurOnline.Com

I here by request you to consider whitelisting the site HosurOnline.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.6.29 (talk) 04:41, 22 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

v t e Noticeboards
Wikipedia's centralized discussion, request, and help venues. For a listing of ongoing discussions and current requests, see the dashboard. For a related set of forums which do not function as noticeboards see formal review processes.
General	Administrators Main Incidents Bots Bureaucrats Centralized discussion Closure requests Education Interface admins Main Page errors Open proxies VRT Oversight User permissions
Articles and content	Biographies of living persons Copyrights Questions on media Problems Dispute resolution External links Fringe theories Neutral point of view Original research Pending changes Reliable sources Resource requests Scalable vector graphics Spam Blacklist Whitelist Style Titleblacklist Translation
Page handling	History merges Mergers Splits Moves Protection Importation XfD Articles Redirects Categories Templates Files Miscellany Undeletion
User conduct	Conflict of interest Contributor copyright Edit warring and 3RR Sanctions Personal restrictions General sanctions Contentious topics Sockpuppets Usernames (Requests for comment) Vandalism
Other	Arbitration Committee noticeboard Requests Enforcement Edit filters Requested False positives Questions Help desk Teahouse Reference desk New articles Requests for comment Village pump Policy Technical Proposals Idea lab WMF Miscellaneous WikiProject proposals Discussions for discussion
Category:Wikipedia noticeboards