Jump to content

MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 05:54, 27 November 2009 (→‎www.plasticsurgery.org). 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|328163042#section_name}}

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

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

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     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}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

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    www.deathcamps.org

    The site is linked in many articles.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC) www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/obrawalde_de.html Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) There was a dispute between the mentioned site and www.death-camps.org which probably doesn't exist any more.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugly mess it is;
    More input by the other admins is needed before anything is done here.--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Several articles quote the site both directly (Gerstein Report) or pretending they don't (Hermann Höfle, Wikipeta!). The same for German Wikipedia. Either the site is totally wrong so all links should be replaced or it's O.K. . Now it's at the same time wrong and O.K.. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you want done? Do you want the site removed from the blacklist entirely (in which case you're at the wrong page) or do you want one or a few links permitted (in which case please specify the exact URIs)? Stifle (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    4shared

    Please whitelist http://www,4shared,com/file/151991255/b13331fb/JC_Smit_Chris_Streicher_Boeremag_Louis_Pretorius,html Replace the , with . It is a document and not spam. --41.18.100.246 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon request to whitelist a link to 3 day old "account" on a file sharing site... unlikely to be reliable source. --Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm about to post an article which would benefit from this link. Examiner.com is banned because it superficially appears reliable but is in fact a "citizen journalism" site with very limited editorial oversight. However, this particular link is to an article by Rene Najera, who is an epidemiologist with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and I want to cite him on a topic of epidemiology. In fact, all I really want to do is cite his citation of a public records database. EvanHarper (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com:
    • Has no editorial oversight
    • Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers incentives to writers to increase page views
    Therefore I am of the opinion that this request should be declined, and will duly decline it in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined Stifle (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.amazon.com/dp/6303194753?tag=imdb-adbox

    Amazon is presumably banned as an online bookshop, and most links would therefore be merely advertising. The unblock for this specific page, concerning the video of the Running Blind TV series, is to verify the high price at which the now extremely rare videos change hands. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We shouldn't be citing that page as it's a primary source (and it could change in the morning anyway). Instead, cite a reliable source which has written about it. At worst, cite an Amazon page that is not an affiliate link (which should not be blocked). Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    dom3.servegame.com/wiki/

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

    (please unblock this namespace)

    This site is a (media)wiki about the game Dominions3 created from fans of the game. See [official dom3 forum entry]

    Seeing the Link from the wikipedia article to the dom3 wiki is very important for everyone interested at the dom3 game. --Horst_F_JENS (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fansites are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. It would seem to also fail Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines also. Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and content is self-published, which includes open wikis.--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    sound extremly stupid to me. with the same arguing, the existing links of the dom3 article (pointing to chinese fan-wiki, strategywiki etc.) should all be deleted and if i understand it right wikipedia articles should also do not link to wikipedia itself (being an open wiki with questionable editing). please, let me modify the dom3 article (i started it and it was one of the reasons to invest time into wikipeda) so that it be useful for it readers. the dom3 "fan" wiki i want to link to is "the" official dom3 wiki right now, read press release form game's publisher http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44186 for more information. being forced to have to beg for a simple thing like posting an external link on an article that would not exist without me is a HUGE dissappointment and shows how a good idea (wikipedia) can go downhill.--Horst_F_JENS (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, "fan wiki's" (with 4 active users last 7days(You being one of them)) are not compatibe with inclusion gudelines. Thirdly, the official site is already listed, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm to everything and enything dom3. From the looks of Dominions3 whats needed are citations, not links Not done--Hu12 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article in question, I see a message box saying "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes." As for citing sources, from the relevant article:
    When to cite sources: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image.
    None of the three references that are in the article right now seem to serve any kind of purpose, as I don't think that somebody wants to fact-check if the game really offers "over 1500 units, 600 spells and 300 magic items" (first citation), "only has a small amount of economic management, focusing almost entirely on creating and deploying armies" (second citation) or that "the battles cannot be influenced once the computer calculates the new turn, but players can set simple orders for their troops before the battle is calculated" (third citation). The last fact may be a little surprising, but it's not like this is really extremely relevant information that would need verification through some "reliable source" as the cited information there is either irrelevant or easily checked where ever you look without digging around much.
    The request wasn't to add the Wiki as a "reliable source" anyway. Regarding the second option from the message box on top of the Dominions 3 article, the need for footnotes:
    Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article.
    The citation argument is in there again. As explained earlier, the Wiki has the blessings of both the game's developers and publisher and was featured in an official news announcement from the game publisher which was reproduced among multiple gaming news sites. But much more important is the first part, that the Wiki in question does provided additional material which would be useless to include in the Wikipedia article. Even if some Wikipedia guidelines prevent to declare it as being a "reliable source of information", it isn't meant to "proof" anything in the Wikipedia article. As it is the most extensive knowledge base regarding the game, it would make a lot of sense to add it as a footnote for people that want to add or seek information regarding the game which would depart from encyclopedic information as sought by Wikipedia.
    Could you illustrate how the Wiki in question could be listed among the footnotes, due to its importance for the community of the game?
    129.217.150.82 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnotes are reference(s). The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate to this are: Verifiability and No original research. For questions and discussions about the reliability of sources, the appropriate place for discussion is at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Discussions about improvements for the Dominions3 article is better served on that Articles talkpage, not here. thank you. Closed.--Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    www.conlanganon.co.cc

    I wish for this site to be unblocked because it is a friendly forum for conlangers with nothing potentially harmful on it. I believe it is useful for people reading the conlang page on wikipedia to have links to such communities. I also believe there may be a problem with the site http://co.cc/ concerning issues like spam, however, although this site uses the service of http://co.cc , it is not involved with anything that site does and therefore is not malicious or anything of that nature.

    Thank you. 202.36.110.10 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunaly this site is an unofficial fansite/forum (With only 2 total menbers) which makes it a Link normally to be avoided which fails Wikipedias External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    z3.invisionfree.com/Kettering_Anime_Club/index.php?

    I would like this site unblocked because it is the web forum for the Kettering University Anime Club, and I wish to link the forum to the "List of student organizations" section of the Kettering University article where the club is mentioned. Wikipedia would benefit from this by being able to provide the most accurate reference to the club and it's activities.

    Thank you, Radnom2, current president of the Kettering University Anime Club. --Radnom2 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined; web forums are not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    kfantransmittertour.co.cc

    This site replaces a now-defunct geocities site referenced for historical data on Wiki pages about radio stations KFAN_(AM) Minneapolis and KFXN Minneapolis. Both the old site and new site were/are created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations.

    Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The links proposed are those referenced in the two articles above. In short, "kfantransmittertour.co.cc" should be whitelisted; as noted above, it is the new (relocated) home of the defunct geocities pages created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations which the articles are about. The information contained at that site has been researched and presented by the individual who maintained and supervised the technical operations of the two radio stations under discussion. This person has first-hand knowledge of the subjects, having been employed by the owner of the stations in the position responsible for proper and legal operation and maintenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not going to whitelist the entire domain. What specific links do you want to use? Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    kfantransmittertour.co.cc is the URL to whitelist. It is the index page to all of the site's sub links, 100% of which pertain to the articles. The site is a small, focused site about the stations and nothing else. Take a look and you'll see it is acceptable to whitelist and makes sense to do so given the number of deeper links, all living on the one main page.

    This page - kfantransmittertour.co.cc/alw.html - confirms the identity and validity of the site's author should there be concern about anything lurking below the surface; the previous, 100% identical, geocities site (exactly the same as kfantransmittertour.co.cc, only the URL has changed) had been listed on the Wiki station articles for years without issue. The change under discussion is simply a site move/URL change prompted by the discontinuance of geocities. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://revelationspace dot free forums dot org

    (above address could not be included in its regular form because it is blacklisted, so I used "dot" instead of "."

    To be used on pages:

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

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

    ...and other pages associated with the Revelation Space universe.

    I'm assuming the problem is with the forum host, but I'd ask that editors of this page please follow the link where you can see that it is a legitimate fan forum, with several ongoing discussions of this author's work. And more importantly, it appears to be the only fan forum for this author, who is a popular science fiction writer in Europe and the U.S.

    I also included (in the same edit) links to book reviews, and hope to add more information on Revelation Space because that entry (and several associated with it) are tagged as requiring more work. Thank you for your time. Stormstrike (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one's making the case for whether the forum is a "reliable source." I'm not attempting to source any of the material in the article to the forum -- I simply want to put a link to the forum under "External links" so readers interested in Alastair Reynolds and the Revelation Space universe can join in on discussions about the books if they'd like to, and read information about short stories written by Mr. Reynolds.

    There are thousands upon thousands of wikipedia entries that have External links to discussion boards and fan sites for various authors, artists and musicians. Notice how the entry for Iain M. Banks (a very similar author of space opera) includes a link a fan site with forums -- that's all I'm asking.

    Please read this request carefully, as again, I am not asking to source anything to the forum. Stormstrike (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunatly forums, fansites and social networking sites are all Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. As to pointing out that other articles have forum links, doesn't make for an exception that this link should also be included.--Hu12 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the link. I read the relevant section, and it seems the main focus of those external "links to be avoided" are things like Myspace, Usenet groups, Yahoo groups, etc. I can understand that.

    But in this case, we are talking about the only existing forum and news site for Alastair Reynolds, a British science fiction author. This forum is not only a discussion place, it is also an author-specific news site where information on the author's new stories and collections are posted. Again, nothing is to be sourced to that forum: I simply want to include it for folks who may want to discuss his work and read more about his novels and short stories.

    I'm having a hard time understanding how this would lower the quality of the associated Wikipedia pages. I've started cleaning up some of those Reynolds pages, and most of them have very few links to external sources. Including such a link would actually be useful to people who enjoyed reading Mr. Reynolds's books, since the author only maintains a blog (which is not really focused on the books) and there is no "official site" for the series.

    It seems the distinction here is about including information vs not including information. On such sparse entries, it's hard to see how a single relevant, small link would increase Wikipedia's noise ratio. Again, I really feel the information would be enormously helpful to folks interested in the subject matter. One other thing to note is that the link *was* allowed while the forum/news site had its own domain -- is that some sort of threshhold for inclusion? That seems a bit inconsistent. Stormstrike (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/practical-dita/7692915

    I was adding a reference book to the other reading section to the Darwinian Information Typing Architecture. This link is a direct pointer to the book referenced and would help the reader acquire the document if they so wish. 64.132.140.14 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Wikipedia is not a shopping site. We don't like to products like that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the rationale, then you should edit the other entries in the Further Reading section of the article and remove references to the purchase sites for those. You should have a consistent policy and blocking for this reason does not make sense. If someeone wants to get the reference, they will. If not, they won't follow the link. --Jvazquezsdi (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other "links" in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that some link exists in an article somewhere doesn't prove the link your requesting should also be added. In addition, its a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Finaly, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a book. --Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a single page from associatedcontent dot com

    I'd like to request the whitelisting a single web page from the blacklisted web site www dot associatedcontent dot com. The page is http://www.associatedcontent dot com/article/678813/the_forgotten_confederate_soldiers.html?singlepage=true&cat=37 (The Forgotten: Confederate Soldiers Who Died at Gettysburg.) I'd only like to add this link to the "External Links" section of Gettysburg National Cemetery article. I feel the linked web page contains valuable historic information that may not be entirely sourced to Wikipedia standards. As an external link, the user certainly realizes that Wikipedia standards don't apply. Krellkraver (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist singe page from ehow

    I would like to white list the single page http://www (dot) ehow (dot) com/how_5483336_start-wakesurfing.html for the wakesurfing article. Many of the links on that page are purely spam (ex. midwest wakesurf, which is a site that sells boards and has no information) and I believe this article has good information that goes more in depth than a wikipedia article would. I would use it as a reference for a section other than an external link. All of its information has been checked out by references in that site. Assed206 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    eHow.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    no Declined.
    Additionaly
    ...it appears that the author of the article your requesting, notes his home page is "go-college.webs.com" (Adsense pub-0189838191925575). , which you've added to wikipedia twice[1][2] ( as did IP 74.138.50.226 (talk · contribs)). Its quite unusual to find users adding or requesting multiple sites related to a particular user. Other questionable edits involve this suggestion, to a site with no forum members or posts. then actualy adding it to another article. There appears to be a pattern of Source soliciting a site you've "found" then adding it over multiple articles[3][4][5][6][7][8], as with tech2classroom.com (Adsense pub-0189838191925575). You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote these sites right? --Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am here to improve wikipedia, and have no connections to IP address 74.138.50.226 (talk · contribs). The World War I page with the tech2classroom.com subdomain was unblocked for me to have that site on there, as it is a historical reference. I would like to request that it gets reposted, as it is a good site. While I will admit some of the sites do have the same publisher, they are all refernece only. I wont dispute the revoking of the wowcrossroads site or ehow, but the other two are very informational. From here on I will try to stay only on posting text, not links. Thank you.

    www.plasticsurgery.org

    This is the main website that represents greater than 95% of all board certified plastic surgeons in the United States. I noticed it was blacklisted when I tried to add an external link to the wiki page "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Plastic_Surgeons" that is written about the society. I do not know why it was blacklisted (either "competitors" are attempting to block it, or an over-zelous marketing department irritated Wiki), but it seems that at least an external link should be present on this page. Other significant medical societies have such external links from wiki. --DrMBogdan (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because of previous abuses and spam I'm reluctent to whitelist the entire domain. However because this is the official site of American Society of Plastic Surgeons article and the the article lacks the official link... I've whitelisted the main page, http://www.plasticsurgery.org/x5.xml for use in that article only.  Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    Denied Requests

    lulu.com

    Hello I want to have www.lulu.com, which is a book site to be removed from the forbidden list because I need to reference that for notability for a wikipedia page I am doing on Luis Durani and it wil ladd credence to his personality and needed for his proof that he wrote teh book.

    This section is to request pages be blocked. Please file your request in the correct section. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Associatedcontent should be added to the white list because it is a great reference website, including many topics which aren't readily available anywhere else.

    Associatedcontent.com:
    • Exercises no editorial control over articles
    • Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers authors monetary incentives to increase pageviews
     Denied Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)


    Troubleshooting and problems


    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)[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=328163042"