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 Anachronist (talk | contribs) at 15:44, 17 June 2013 (→‎Whitelist the link to Encyclopedia Dramatica on Encyclopedia Dramatica: done). 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|560310692#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 (web pages to unblock)


    empowernetwork.com on Baltic sea anomaly

    empowernetwork.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

    • empowernetwork.com/pmatjaz/blog/ufo-sightings-baltic-sea-ufo

    Request single page to be added to Baltic Sea UFO, it is interesting source of information about other possible explanations for Baltic sea anomaly. Matjaz 15 May 2013

    Examiner.com on cotton candy

    examiner.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

    • examiner.com/article/december-7-is-cotton-candy-day

    Request single page to be added to cotton candy as a reference, it is the only source of information regarding whether cotton candy is mainly air. The page is mainly about the subject of air in cotton candy. Coolboygcp (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this article a reliable source? MER-C 11:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    suvenirograd.ru

    suvenirograd.ru: 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

    Request single page page suvenirograd.ru/impressions.php?id=2&lang=2&pid=9 to be allowed on page Karp_Lykov. That page is a description (in English) of a research trip (written and performed by G. Kramor Employee of the Yershov museum - I have no further information on these names; the page appears genuine though with "pictures by the author"). The page offers more specific descriptions of the religious background and about the place of origin of Karp_Lykov and his family. Both aspects are relevant to his history of fleeing into Siberian solitarity for 42 years. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read my request? And how do the advertisements in say NYT or any other newspaper (not) discredit the content pages? -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed. I read your request. The site itself looks like an online store, which does not fill me with confidence that any articles they may publish would be considered reliable sources. Nobody mentioned advertisements; that's irrelevant. What matters is whether the personal "travel impressions" (which is how the site describes these articles) of an "employee of the Yershov museum" can be considered a reliable source. Please take your case to WP:RSN to get a community view of the reliability of this source. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. No RSN request in evidence, assuming the requester is no longer interested. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IWA Water Wiki on sewage treatment page

    The IWA water wiki contains information on sewage treatment processes from the nearest thing there is to an international body on sewage (and water) treatment. referencing this in the external links for sewage treatment & the entry on the IWA itself seems reasonable for making more information available. 213.253.35.226 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What link on what domain are you talking about? If you leave off the 'http://' from the beginning of the link, you will be able to add it and save it here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done it in a kludgy manner on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Water_Association#External_links 213.253.35.226 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed that again, tracking now above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/the-emergence-of-yiddish-theater-montreal

    I am requesting the whitelisting of two pages:

    • Carol Roach, "Yiddish Theater in Montreal", Examiner, May 14, 2012.[www.examiner.com/article/jewish-theater-montreal];
    • Carol Rpach, "The emergence of Yiddish theater in Montreal", "Examiner", May 14, 2012[www.examiner.com/article/the-emergence-of-yiddish-theater-montreal.

    The site is a good source for Yiddish life in Montreal. Eklir (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.bet-at-home.com

    bet-at-home.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 This is the homepage of Bet-at-home.com, and thus it should be enabled for this page. It is plain stupid, that an internet redirect page is needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is linked from the page. I agree, we should whitelist a 'index.htm' here. Bet-at-home was spammed in the past.
    Note, casino-review.org is NOT an internet redirect page, it is an affiliate spam site:
    I would be favourable actually to de-listing bet-at-home on meta, it has legitimate use now cross-wiki. Unfortunately, old requests for that were never done in a serious way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/let-s-get-old-school-for-a-moment-aardwolf-mud

    examiner.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 I hope to use this web page as a reference for the Wikipedia article "Aardwolf (MUD)". The web page contains detailed information about Aardwolf, including an in-depth interview with the MUD's developer, Lasher. It is clear that the author has played the MUD. For what it's worth, I have also played the MUD and I can verify that the information is accurate. I understand that examiner.com is blacklisted due to its model of article creation. However I believe that the information on this particular web page is accurate and reliable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it about that interview that would be useful for referencing in the article? Given the author's bio, I'll grant that the piece is accurate and reliable; however, because something in examiner.com is accurate and reliable isn't a reason to whitelist it. Convenience also isn't a reason to whitelist. Why is this a useful reference on Wikipedia? What information in it can't be found anywhere else? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Being accurate, reliable & convenient aren't good reasons to whitelist a web page? I find that surprising. Are there (consensus-derived) guidelines to help decide which web pages should be whitelisted?
    To address your question: I found three other sources that are suitable as references. Of these, one is an interview with the MUD designer/owner. That is an older page, from 2009. The examiner.com article is from 2011, with more up to date information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklist contains several sources that are accurate, reliable, and convenient. They are blacklisted due to a history of abuse. That is the only consideration. Their accuracy, reliability, or convenience are completely irrelevant considerations to the blacklist. Convenience, especially, is not a reason to white-list. There is no requirement for sources to be online.
    However, reliability is a consideration for white-listing, provided that alternatives don't exist. I assume with good faith that you believe the article is useful for Wikipedia. So I ask again, how? If alternative sources are available, what would motivate Wikipedia to provide examiner.com with yet another revenue stream by white-listing one of its pages? Is there something unique in that article, beyond being published in 2011, that would be useful to reference where no other source will do? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing the reasons for blacklisting a website. Rather, I disagree with your criteria for whitelisting a web page. Since you haven't pointed to (consensus-derived) guidelines, I assume that your criteria are simply your own opinion. Alongside reliability, in my opinion one of the most important criteria is the likelihood of future spam ("abuse") if whitelisted—something that you haven't mentioned at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My answer basically followed the consensus that has been long-established for this page. It's also stated to you right up front in the big green box that appears when you edit a section on this page: A whitelisted link must be useful to Wikipedia. It follows that if alternatives are available, then those alternatives should be used rather than whitelisting a link. I ask again: Is there something unique in that article that would be useful to reference where no other source will do? Your last statement is a non-sequitur. Future abuse doesn't follow from whitelisting a single page; that's more about whitelisting an entire site. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

    It would be a nice addition for the Water_fluoridation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.157.151 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 April 2013

    Perhaps. An identical request to yours was made last year and declined: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/01#fluoridealert.org.
    I have looked closely at this article. While the site is clearly an advocacy site with a bias, that particular article appears to be well researched and referenced to other reliable sources. My concern is that this is a WP:TERTIARY source of uncertain reliability. It would be far better to examine the sources cited to be certain that fluoridealert.org isn't engaging in synthesis or original research in its interpretation of those sources, and cite those sources instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.iaemagazine.com/feed/Vol2iss9/brian-malouf-vp-walt-disney-records.html

    iaemagazine.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 I would like to use this interview link as one source for a new page, the subject of which is music producer, mixer, and record executive Brian Malouf. The interview, which I can't find anywhere else, includes specific pieces of information that are relevant to his biography (how he got his start, working with Michael Jackson, etc) and which would corroborate generic discography lists. --Adamstrangelove (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.metaldetectingforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11904&p=100971

    metaldetectingforums.co.uk: 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 I would like to use this specific forum thread on the External coverage section of Day of Archaeology because the link illustrates the point that 'The project covers any form of work...'. The link is illustrative rather than being used to make a point about archaeology. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. See WP:ELNO item 10. We could make an exception if the forum was an official forum for the project, but that isn't the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/june-29-friday-global-day-of-archaeology

    examiner.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 I would like to use this article on External coverage section of Day of Archaeology because the link illustrates a piece of coverage in non-archaeology-specific media that the project generated. I realise that examiner.com is at /common requests but am not using the information content of the article - its mere existence is relevant. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "mere existence" of something on examiner.com is no more relevant than existence on a blog or any other site consisting of user-generated content. Because anybody can publish anything they want on examiner.com without any editorial oversight, it is hardly surprising that someone interested in archaeology would post a note about it there. If any non-archaeology-specific media with editorial oversight deems it appropriate to publish an article about the project, that would be relevant. Therefore  Not done. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com - 2 links

    examiner.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 I see Examiner.com being denied a lot on here, but one was allowed because it was an interview with the subject of the article it was to be used on. That is my same situation, the two articles that I want to use are original interviews; www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-yoshiki-of-x-japan & www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-kaoru-and-die-of-dir-en-grey-on-the-band-s-dum-spiro-spero-tour. I'd like to use them on X Japan; the first because it explicitly comes from a band member and says that they left the Sony record label specifically because Atlantic offered them a worldwide deal; and the second because a member of Dir En Grey says they were inspired by X Japan, so I'd like to include it in the Influence section. Xfansd (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That interview with Yoshiki is one of the more useless, cryptic, and content free interviews I have seen. This is not a high quality source.
    http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1310471/reunited-x-japan-confirm-us-europe-dates says that the group signed a worldwide deal with Atlantic in 1992. It seems obvious that a band who had not published outside of Japan would sign onto a record label offering a worldwide deal.
    According to http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=2124, X Japan cofounder Yoshiki helped create Dir En Gray. The Wikipedia article on Dir En Gray even says Yoshiki wrote songs for the band. I don't see the "inspiration" factoid brought forth in an interview as relevant, given the intertwined history of both bands and their members.
    I'm not convinced these links need whitelisting because alternatives appear to be available. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is not a particularly informative interview, hence I was only going to use it for that one part. I just thought since its coming straight from a member that they "left" (not dropped or contract expired) the label specifically because another offered a worldwide deal, that it is a more useful source than one that just says they signed to a new label. To say that Yoshiki "created" Dir en grey is way more credit than deserved, just like their article says he arranged and produced a couple of early songs. I don't see how you think the inspiration factoid is irrelevant though, it is common practice to add such info to bands' articles. Maybe you meant that the inspiration was fairly obvious, therefore there's no need for this one source? I guess I was just trying to use sources that flat-out say these things from the band members, rather than ones that simply report them. As long as no one tries to split hairs because of that and tries to have those parts removed from the X Japan article I can live without the Examiner sources. Xfansd (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems reasonable to approve this request. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FluorideAlert.org (again)

    WWW.FluorideAlert.org should be white listed. It is the most complete and professional reference on the problems with water fluoridation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfb102455 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not the first who has tried to get this extremely fringe website accepted, but there are ZERO good reasons for doing so. You've been answered quite nicely here:
    Talk:Water fluoridation controversy#Fluoride Alert Network (FAN) embodies the controversy and banning it is form of censorship.
    Contrary to your claim that the Water fluoridation controversy article has "not one atom of the fluoride controversy in this article,"[1] it actually documents the controversy quite well, using much more reliable sources than FAN, "a Mom and Pop organization, being run by a undistinguished (largely unpublished) and undecorated (zero national awards) professor retired from a tiny college together with his son and his wife."[2] -- Brangifer (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    mokimobility.com/about/

    mokimobility.com/about/ For use on MokiMobility.

    I accepted this article at AFC today and tried to include the company website in the infobox but the domain is blacklisted. Refer to this discussion where an editor suggested using the company's "About" page rather than its landing page.

    I've reviewed the page, and the company's "About" page has information that readers might find useful.QuantifiedElf (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    silkroadvb5piz3r.onion

    Silk_Road_(marketplace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    To give a little background, .onion address lead to hidden websites, and they always incorporate a hash string. This fact makes them hard to verify and therefore vulnerable to substitution by links to phishing sites, which is why the whole .onion TLD was recently blacklisted. The discussion at the time anticipated that the whitelist would be used to permit the handful of necessary .onion links. The Silk Road article has been prone to such phishing attacks, so I welcome this policy.

    As can be seen from this discussion, some people have expressed strong views against including this link in the article. The !votes have a small bias towards inclusion, and (as I cover in more detail in my review here and ensuing discussion) none of the opposing votes succeed in explaining why this link would contravene our policies. The main policy cited is WP:ELNO which does not apply to official links. The WMF has announced that there is no legal issue with this link that requires their intervention.

    Following a link to a hidden website requires additional software beyond a vanilla web browser, but this is also true of external links to videos and PDFs. For comparison, see the .onion link used here. We could undoubtedly do better at presenting links to hidden websites, for example by creating a template that allows the user to use a selection of proxy services.

    An associated configuration change in XLinkBot may be required, as it is apparently also policing a restriction on .onion links.

    As an administrator, I could go ahead and add the link to the whitelist myself but, given some of the things that have have been said and done with respect to this issue, I thought that it might reduce drama to open it for discussion here first. I urge anyone contributing to this thread to avoid rehashing points that have been adequately explored in the links above. Bovlb (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As the administrator who has been suggesting a couple of times to blacklist all off .onion (though I did not blacklist the domain myself), I agree that the fact that we blacklist ALL of .onion does not mean that official sites should not be whitelisted. There have been many problems with .onion (insertion of redirects, insertion of phishing links 'redirecting' to the original) but I believe that this should be done.
    The XLinkBot rule does not need adaptation, that only is for non-established accounts/IPs, anyone with a 'given' right is ignored completely, and autoconfirmed users are not reverted. Moreover, XLinkBot can be reverted and the bot will not re-revert, the bot will 'assume' good faith on the reversions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And as the administrator who actually added *.onion to the blacklist, I have no objection to adding official .onion domains to the whitelist. I think this is a reasonable request. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to whitelist. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on ComputerVision computer company

    This article www.cbronline.com/news/computervision_agrees_to_sell_prime_informationopen_to_vmark

    should be added to the whitelist as it explains a crucial step in how Prime Information became acquired by Rocket Software. It's valuable for the history it pinpoints. It's just an article on the sale of a computer asset from one company to another. Wjhonson (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative sources can't be found? Here's one: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/68797430.html?dids=68797430:68797430&FMT=ABS which contains the quotation (this came from Google cache, it's visible if you pay for the full version) "VMark Software will buy the software developed by Prime to allow customers an ... the Bedford company prepared to go public as a born-again Computervision." ~Amatulić (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Several articles at www.cbronline.com/news/

    • www.cbronline.com/news/phoenix_technologies_acquire_dip_research
    • www.cbronline.com/news/digital_research_shows_off_real_time_flexos_386
    • www.cbronline.com/news/digital_research_launches_flexos_286_real_time_manufacturing_operating_system

    I would like to use these articles as references in various WP articles like FlexOS, Atari Portfolio, Ian Cullimore.

    This site appears to be a long-standing news site with staff editors etc. In none of the cases I looked up information there over the years I could find any kind of SPAM, so perhaps it would be easier to whitelist everything under:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/

    Please investigate and consider my suggestion. Thanks. (Of course, I have no affiliation of any kind with that site.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As in previous requests, I think the specific links may be suitable for whitelisting. This site, and many other sites of the same owner, were blatantly spammed for a long time by the site owners, and I think that might still be needed to be kept under control. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding cbronline, it's good to keep it under control. However, in the case of the articles in question I either could not find this particular information online elsewhere or only mixed with other partially incorrect information which I therefore did not want to use as a reference.
    BTW. Thanks for fixing ([3]) the format of the links above. This wasn't explained in the green box at the start of this page and since the links there were not working (they were pointing to no longer valid section headers), I went straight to the bottom of this section (as requested in the intro) without reading the explanations given at the top of this section... ;-) I have meanwhile fixed ([4]) the transcluded template so that editors will no longer run into the same pitfall and thereby create unneccesary work.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.findspermdonor.com/default

    • findspermdonor.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
    • findspermdonor.com/default
    • Why it should be whitelisted: FindSpermDonor.com is an online sperm bank. It's an online sperm donor catalog and it's non-commercial. It's a sperm bank as any other sperm bank, just online and hassle free.
    • Which article would benefit: Anyone who searched for "Sperm Donor" or "Sperm Bank" articles should be interested in such a site as an external link. It's as relevant as "http://dk.cryosinternational.com" which appears on the "Sperm_bank" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babydate (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
       Not done. Invalid rationale. This page is for requesting whitelisting of specific pages, not entire domains. Also, we generally don't entertain requests from users with a conflict of interest. -Amatulic
    • The front page is enough. the link is updated.
      You have not provided any valid rationale for whitelisting. The fact that it's an online sperm bank is irrelevant. The fact that it's non-commercial is irrelevant. The fact that it's online and "hassle free" is irrelevant.
      We don't white-list for the purpose of including external links, we white-list for the purpose of including references, or external links to companies for which the company is the article topic — and we have no article about this company. Also the dk.cryosinternational.com links are not necessarily relevant (one is dead); they look like refspam, and their presence are not a reason to include links to other company web sites. Therefore, this request is  Denied. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main topic of this website is a sperm bank, so this is practically a link to a company which is the topic of the article. This was my rational. I do apologize that it seemed like an automated spam. I manually edited all the entries since I believed it can contribute to the topic as an external link to a sperm bank company in a sperm bank/sperm donor topic Babydate (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did this not get blacklisted in the last couple of days because of all the spam?  Denied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.youporn.com

    You were directed here to request whitelisting of a specific page on youporn.com, not the entire domain. To whitelist their home page we'd need an absolute path there, like www.youporn.com/index.php (which doesn't work). Do you have a path name to a specific page to suggest? Typically we'd whitelist a site's "about us" page, but I don't see one. The most relevant one might be the site map page: www.youporn.com/sitemap.html. Will that work? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think sitemap is fine, I can link that. --helohe (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Single Page: squidoo.com/RachelMaddowShowBookList

    squidoo.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

    Explain why the site should be whitelisted:

    I created this article/webpage because I could not find a list of the books written by the guests on The Rachel Maddow Show. Many television shows and radio shows have a section of their website where they list the books and music which appears on the show. The Rachel Maddow show does not have such a page. The Rachel Maddow Blog (maddowblog.msnbc.com/) lists the names of the guests and occasionally will mention if the guest is an author and may mention a specific book the author has written. However, this is NOT done consistently. And there is not a single page on the site which provides a single listing. If an author and/or their book is noted it is buried under the entry for that date, not displayed in a separate section labelled "books."

    The same is true for the music used on the show. Nightly there is a different song used for the transitions to and from commercials and to and from different segments of the show. The Maddow Blog lists this but not in a concise or easy way to find. The name of the song is often hidden in a link which involves a clever pun. While I'm a big fan of puns, it does make it difficult to find the name of the song. Which is why I included the bumper music as well as the books in my article.

    I create the list of books on the page by using the Guest List posted on the Rachel Maddow Blog for each night's show. I search Amazon and Wikipedia to see if they have written any books. If they have, I list the author's most recently published book on my page. I include a short one line description of the author, usually with their affiliation and I provide a link to the Wikipedia article about the author if one exists and if it does not have a "trouble flag" of some kind. If there is no Wikipedia article, I do a Google search and include a link to the authors homepage if one exists or to an "about the author" page on the most authoritative site I can find. Usually this is on the webpage of the institution with which the author is affiliated: NPR, think tanks, newspapers, magazines, publisher websites, or non-profit organizations.

    Here is an excerpt from the introduction of my article which explains more fully the scope and purpose of my article/web page:

    "The Rachel Maddow Show usually features one or two guests during the sixty minute program who are, sometimes, also authors who have written one or more books.
    .
    Usually the guest author is there to provide commentary on the topic of the day, or to be interviewed because they are the topic of the day. Therefore, any plug of the author's book is secondary to the author's pundit or news role.
    .
    Given that focus, it is understandable that there is no easy or concise way to find a list of the books mentioned or featured on the show. Trust me, I looked.
    .
    I'm a librarian and I'm pretty good at finding information on the Internet, IF it exists: there is NOT a simple concise list of the books and songs from TRMS.
    .
    So I decided to create one!"

    Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. I would like to add a link to my article/bibliography in the external links section of this article on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_maddow_show I think that people looking for information about the Rachel Maddow Show would benefit from having this information about the books and music from the show.

    Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. This is the page I am requesting to be whitelisted. Just this page, not the whole domain: squidoo.com/RachelMaddowShowBookList

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxCowboyDancer (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware of some key Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are proposing to violate with this request?
    Engaging in original research on some other site and linking to it isn't really any different from engaging in original research directly in a Wikipedia article. In this case you might be able to write a list article on Wikipedia called List of books featured on the Rachel Maddow Show and link to that from The Rachel Maddow Show but I suspect such a list article may get deleted as trivia.
    I don't doubt your expertise as a librarian, or your good faith efforts in creating that site on Squidoo. But Wikipedia policies and guidelines are pretty clear that your Squidoo page wouldn't last long on Wikipedia even if it were whitelisted. Therefore, I have no choice but to mark this request as no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I wasn't aware of those policies. Thank you for the link. I'm new here on the editing side of Wikipedia. I've used the site for some time but never created an account.  :-) Thank you for your time in considering the request. --TxCowboyDancer (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And thank you for your understanding. I liked the work you did, but my personal opinion also wouldn't justify whitelisting. If you give the same attention to detail and thoroughness in your contributions to Wikipedia as you did to that site, then you will be an asset to Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    cypress.com

    cypress.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

    1. why. It should be added to the whitelist because Cypress Semiconductor is a 31-year old IC manufacturing corporation in Silicon Valley. No corporation with a stock symbol should ever be put on the blacklist, seriously! see http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:CY • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. which articles. PSoC and Cypress Semiconductor. I've been working on various ARM processor articles, so PSoC is why I'm here today. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. specific link. www.cypress.com/?id=4749&source=productshome and investors.cypress.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=758772 and there are plenty more references that I need to cleanup or fix in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Google finance links are irrelevant to the blacklist. The age of the company is irrelevant to the blacklist. I also admire the company, as do many investors, but your personal views or mine are also irrelevant. All that really matters is past behavior, and Cypress's past deserves blacklisting. Accept that and move on.
    I'd have no problem with the first link request, but wouldn't the general products overview page be better? That one's at www.cypress.com/?id=2&source=header -- I'll tell you up front that an admin will likely not want to white-list every single product page on that site. An encyclopedia article isn't a portal to a company web site, after all.
    As to the second link: Press releases are inappropriate for using as references, as are any other self-published material. Also, press releases are widely available, so there is no need to white-list such pages from a blacklisted domain. See http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130424005635/en/Fully-Qualified-Production-Silicon-Cypress%E2%80%99s-PSoC%C2%AE-4 as an alternative. Please restrict your requests to pages that have no alternative elsewhere. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/RevU_fNpITE

    youtu.be: 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

    • youtu.be/RevU_fNpITE

    Request single page to be added to Saidels Bakery as a reference, it is the only TV appearance of Les Saidel to date and thus a very important reference to the page. Eliezersaidel (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Use the full youtube.com URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RevU_fNpITE, which isn't blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CEIQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcnr.state.pa.us%2Fcs%2Fgroups%2Fpublic%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Fdcnr_010537.docx&ei=zDGIUf8Yx-HTAaXfgbgK&usg=AFQjCNGRnbqtA7WOHFSiR222FQT86YZCeg

    Trying to use this page as a source in a draft I'm working on, but the spam blacklist won't let it through :(. King Jakob C2 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Don't use Google redirect links (or any other redirect link from anyone else) on Wikipedia. Use the direct link instead. In this case http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_010537.docx is not blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.annyas.com/screenshots/saul-bass-title-sequences

    annyas.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

    Request that this single page from this website be whitelisted so that I can add it to the Saul Bass page as an external link, as it offers one of the most complete selections and analyses of Saul Bass title sequences on the web. Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    According to the logs, that specific link is the primary reason why annyas.com is blacklisted, not just on the English Wikipedia, but globally across all Wikis. Not sure about whether that site infringes copyrights either, but from my perspective it looks like fair use. Anyway,  Not done for now, but other admin comments are welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion

    Tor_(anonymity_network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    To give some background, *.onion addresses has been discussed several times, with the first time originated from the Tor (anonymity network) regarding a link to The Hidden Wiki a few years ago. At that time, the article had several .onion links, and consensus from that discussion resulted in all but one to be removed, the hidden wiki to be blacklisted, and *.onion to be put on the xlinkbot list. The link that was kept is the one here that I would like to be whitelisted, and is an rather basic introduction/welcome page for the .onion hidden service network. The link has been on the tor project article ever since consensus was created and no vandalism has yet to be seen over the years its been there.

    However, a discussion on Silk Road (marketplace) promoted a new request for blacklisting all the *.onion addresses, and was rather quick granted with no discussion on the blacklist noticeboard, thus adding the still xlinkbot listed item to the blacklist. To avoid problems, I would thus like that the above introduction page to be whitelisted.

    See #silkroadvb5piz3r.onion discussion below for additional context and background, and the blacklist archive. Belorn (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reasonable request, plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com article on Ron Paul march

    The individual link i am requesting to be permitted is: examiner.com/article/historic-veterans-for-ron-paul-march-on-the-white-house

    I have been researching several sources/link pertaining to the event in question, 2012 Ron Paul veteran march on DC. And this seemed to be the only link that outlined a key segment from the event; the part where they stood in silence, reverse from the White House — 8 minutes for those killed in suicide and another 20 minutes for those killed in battle. While i have used other sources/links for citation of other lines for the wiki article (Adam Kokesh), only this can be used to source the moment of silence part. Thanks in advance. DA1 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done because alternative reliable sources are easily found within seconds. Did you miss sources such as: International Business Times and ABC news? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, have you read my explanation? I actually have sourced those links in the wiki article already. The reason for the examiner link is specifically to cite the claim regarding the time length for the moment-of-silence (8min and 20min). There are NO other articles online that mention how long the moment-of-silence was and how it was broken down. If you can get it, please let me know. If not, then please allow the link passage. DA1 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.voobly.com/pages/view/about

    I would like to do an article about the Peer to Peer Software Voobly. It is a widely used matchmaking software that supports over 50 classic CD Rom PC Games and even Microsoft Gaming Zone referred their players to use this software for cd rom matchmaking when they retired their service. The software is similar to other software on wikipedia such as Garena, Gameranger and Tunngle, but also offers different features such as an Elo Rating System. Voobly is already mentioned in a couple Wikipedia articles such as Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and Age of Empires II: The Conquerors. I request that www.voobly.com/pages/view/about be white listed for use of reference in the article, Thank You VPIN3 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Age of Empires I & II Matchmaking Retired on MSN Games[5]
    • Voobly 2.1.60.24[6]
    • Voobly 2.1[7]
    • Voobly caters for many different CD-ROM games[8]
    • Age of Empires II Online dengan Voobly[9]
    • Voobly Software Awards[10]

    Do you have a draft article? Stifle (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I have a draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VPIN3/Voobly VPIN3 (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any of those sources as being significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. What we have here (in the same order as above):
    • trivial mention
    • a download page on Softpedia (see WP:ELNO #4 and #5)
    • primary source (see WP:PRIMARY)
    • a lengthy user review on rtsguru (see WP:ELNO #10 and #11)
    • a blog post with "how-to" instructions (see WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:ELNO #11, and WP:SPS)
    • primary source
    The draft article itself cites other Wikipedia articles, which is something Wikipedia articles shouldn't do.
    I don't see anything that indicates notability as defined by WP:CORP. I am skeptical that this article would be accepted if submitted for review. I understand you're still working on it. It's perfectly OK to include a single link to www.voobly.com/pages/view/about for the purpose of completeness, but citing Voobly in an article about Voobly isn't going to work well. Once the article is submitted for review and accepted, it would be no problem to white-list that link.
    So  Not done for now, to be revisited after the article is accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.avoiceformen.com/author/erin-pizzey/ articles

    avoiceformen.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 I attempted to get the site off the blacklist and this was rejected, and it was suggested I apply to get certain articles useful for Wikipedia whitelisted. Wikipedia has an article about Erin Pizzey, the notable founder of the first domestic violence shelter in the world. She has written several articles she has consented to be published on AV4M and I would like all of them to be linkable. The section title is her author overview page, and here are the specific article links I would like to see whitelisted:

    1. www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/from-avfm-editor-at-large-erin-pizzey/
    2. www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/erin-pizzey-reflects-on-toronto/
    3. www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/aerobics/
    4. www.avoiceformen.com/women/working-with-violent-women/
    5. www.avoiceformen.com/updates/live-now-on-reddit/
    6. www.avoiceformen.com/updates/erin-pizzey-live-on-reddit-part-2/
    7. www.avoiceformen.com/updates/statement-from-erin-pizzey/

    If we have an article about a person, linking to things that person wrote is quite useful for establishing who they are and what they are about. Ranze (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Howabout you just put a sentence somewhere in the article that she has published work on the website of a voice for men. The interested reader can probably do a google search on his or her own. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing which works someone has published as a 'proof' that someone publishes on a site is a form of using primary sourcing. Moreover, we are not a web-directory to show what works someone has published and link to all of that. Please find a reliable source thát she is publishing there, and use that as a reference - this is just not necessary, except if some of these works are really necessary as a reference to verify another fact. Please read WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPAM to see what our relevant policies and guidelines are for linking, what should be linked and what does not need to be linked. no Declined. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/0Vf8zH4E6fM

    I would like to cite the video of the construction of the folkfloor at Northwest Folklife -- in the folk tradition much of the history is oral and this video provides an oral/video record of how the floor was started, how it's built, and the materials used in its construction (Masonite, and Homasote. This community building-event has been going on for more than 25 years. RichardLetts (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a redirect service, specifically for YouTube. Since YouTube itself has problems (there are several cases where specific youtube links are blacklisted, here and on meta), is anyway (often) a discouraged link, and redirect services are (except for very, very few exceptions) utterly not necessary for Wikipedia (moreover, most redirecting services obscure what is being linked), the redirect site has been meta-blacklisted to avoid blacklist evasion and give clarity of linking - you can use the full link instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vf8zH4E6fM. no Declined - but I hope this helps and explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.uitmetkorting.nl

    uitmetkorting.nl: 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

    I would like to cite an article (research) on Uitmetkorting.nl (this one http://www.uitmetkorting.nl/informatie/autipas/) at both Dutch Wiki sites about Autistic people (nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/autisme & nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/autipas. In this article all Dutch day recreation attractions are contacted to find out if they accept the Autistic passport (Autipas in Dutch). This is the only reliable and complete overview available online which state what conditions every day attraction has in allowing autistic people to visit there park/zoo/museum etc.

    Obviously, since you can link it here, it is not blacklisted here. It is only blacklisted on the Dutch Wikipedia, which means that you will have to ask for delisting there. Nothing to do here, so marking as  Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fertilityproregistry.com/article/possible-side-effects-of-preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis.html

    It looks like the URL, www.fertilityproregistry.com, is blocked. I only need to cite the above one URL. Please add it to the whitelist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.54 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I intend to use the link to cite on Preimplantation genetic diagnosis wiki page to show the possible side effects associated with the diagnosis.
    Can anyone tell me what is the status with this approval please? Do you need any additional info from me?

    Examiner.com on Paul McGehee

    www.examiner.com/article/looking-back-time-with-paul-mcgehee-master-painter-his-genre Tried to add to the article: Articles for creation/Paul McGehee


    This is an article about an artist named Paul McGehee who I am trying to add an article about. The article is in progress and not yet approved because it did not have enough media articles to establish the person's notability. Mr. McGehee has been pretty well known in the Washington area since the 80s, and I think a lot of the articles about him are from before the internet and so cannot be found online. The one article I already had is from U.S. News and World Report, which was a major national newsmagazine. I think it is important because this is a very mainstream news article about him and it is surprisingly hard to find those about him. I was hoping that with a couple more of them my article would be approved.

    I don't know what the problem could be with the Examiner. Here in the DC area it's probably the #3 or even #2 local paper, after the Post and maybe the Times. Nothing unusual about it. I don't have any connection with the Examiner, I don't see their web site much, and I don't know what they did to tick you all off, but I don't see how you can be encyclopedic while saying you won't accept any references to a major newspaper.

    - John Crouch

    Did you read /Common requests? Examiner.com is not the same as the DC local paper of a similar name. It's an online site that exercises zero editorial control over what gets published, with the objective of paying authors per click. That makes it a spam magnet on Wikipedia.
    I'll add that if the only coverage on a topic comes from examiner.com, well, that isn't considered a reliable source for the purposes of WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "zero editorial control" is a oft-repeated but false accusation. Examiner editors are pre-screened before being allowed to publish, and every article goes through an independent review process, which if shown to be unsuitable in content the article is removed from the Examiner site. Granted, it is not rigorous pre-publication editorial control, but there is some oversight. - 70.194.133.72 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/07/18/5002.shtml

    Kavkaz Center seems to be blocked. I just need to be able to cite to the one news article above. There was a paragraph in Yvonne Ridley's page that was removed a couple of years ago under BLP because the cite for the quote wasn't provided. Having tracked it down, I'd like to be able to use it as the cite. AFAIK, the article is not published elsewhere on the internet. Thanks. Bromley86 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I should have mentioned that the article is written by Ridley herself.Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    squidoo.com on Nanny cam

    squidoo.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

    • www.squidoo.com/nannies-caught-by-nanny-cam-and-busted

    Request single page to be added to Nanny cam, because this article is well sourced and is not spam. It shows examples of nanny cam used in final rulings to convict acts of child abuse. The article quotes exerts from news reports, links to the original report with third party video. It seems the goal of the article is to suggest not using a nanny cam to catch child abuse, and instead prevent child abuse - a suggestion which is sourced in a CBS video report also found on the page. This article should be added to the Nanny cam external links section.--Spygenie (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/pskw-helps-pharmacies-physicians-connect-with-patients

    I am requesting that this particular article examiner.com/article/pskw-helps-pharmacies-physicians-connect-with-patients be whitelisted for the Wikipedia page I am creating about PSKW. This Examiner article is the only one in which this has been covered outside medical publications and is more relevant to the regular reader. The writer, Robert Janis, is a widely read and well published writer, who currently writes for examiner.com. Thank You.VirtualCatNZ (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What's so special about that article that it must be used instead of other similar (and even more detailed) non-medical articles that aren't blacklisted? See http://dividendkings.com/2013/04/15/pharmaceutical-companies-turn-to-pskw-to-inspire-customer-loyalty/ or perhaps http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/339328 for example. Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason, and its coverage of this topic is apparently not the only coverage that exists outside of medical publications. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Amatulic, I will try an use the first one as the second is the straight press release, I couldn't find the first for looking, so thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualCatNZ (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    smashinginterviews.com (again)

    Requesting that this URL be removed from the blacklist. Not quite sure why this one is being blocked, It is a well-respected and notable magazine, including interviews with high-profile people. Any help would be appreciated here. Boboman360 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. This page is for requesting white-listing of specific links, not whole domains. There's also a decline request below for smashinginterviews; see that to get an idea of the burden the nominator must meet. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/gregory-kohs

    The Wikipedia page Gregory Kohs discusses at length how the subject publishes criticism of Wikipedia, but we are not allowed to link to the subject's publication, which seems a bit preposterous. Readers who visit Gregory Kohs may be expected to want to read more of the aforementioned criticism, at least from an "External links" section. I have read the reasons why Examiner.com links are generally blacklisted (due to overpromotion by Examiner authors who are compensated by traffic), but I am happy to proceed with this request, because adding the link will not likely amount to more than a dozen or so click-throughs per month, which is worth a few cents at most to an Examiner writer. - 70.194.133.72 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The specific link of the page, or pages, which you would like to use:
    www.examiner.com/article/the-twin-cities-response-to-the-rally-to-restore-sanity
    The reason(s) why links to the site should be allowed, and would benefit Wikipedia:
    The link is not being submitted by the author of the article, so is not promotional. It is the only 3rd party news source providing the actual speaker roster for this satellite rally of Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity, held October 30, 2010, at the Minnesota State Capitol. (The other news sources only focused on the "crashing" of the Rally for Sanity by the third party candidate for Governor to give a campaign speech.) Hence the link provides only informational confirmation of one of the listed practices (an address to the Rally entitled "Be Sane — be VERY Sane!") of the organization in the below WP article. The article's notability is conferred by other 3rd party secondary sources (Harvard, Star-Tribune, etc.), but this article is additionally useful to validate the existence of one of the specific events/practices reflecting the espoused philosophy of organization.
    The article or articles on which the links would be used:
    The Circle of Reason
    WP editor's statement to admin concerning request: I've read the Common Requests site's general rationale for blacklisting examiner.com, and agree with the general blacklist because examiner.com stringers are paid by their number of articles, and their news content isn't editorially vetted. However, I'd submit that this particular article's being the only 3rd party source providing the informational content of the Rally's roster of speakers (the type of content that is factual and doesn't require editorial vetting), and it's being the only news source that specifically confirms a speech by the article's organization was indeed on the Rally event's roster, is a sufficient rationale to whitelist this one link. The organization also has no affiliation with the author of this news article being requested for whitelisting. Thx for considering the request, -- Fhburton (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    uk.superiorpapers.com

    I'm editing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALWD_Citation_Manual page and would like to link to this article written by uk.superiorpapers.com: uk.superiorpapers.com/articles/alwd-a-practical-legal-citation-system. The site is a commercial site but has one of the best ALWD citation guide I've seen online: 1.) the article actually uses ALWD and has good ALWD examples 2.) it goes into more depth than other citation guides online such as Purdue's OWL for MLA citations. For it is a good link that explains ALWD well, it can serve as a good secondary source because the official ALWD guidelines are tedious and long. Can an admin white list this one page, the whole domain should not be white listed for I did not research the rest of the site yet. Reed40 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like either of these sources say basically the same thing without the blatant spammy fluff:
    Both links show examples. The superiorpapers article compares Bluebook with AWLD, and so does the asl.edu document. Will those be sufficient? I have deep misgivings about giving free publicity to any site whose business model encourages students to cheat on assignments. Just look at their home page. Ugh. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What the superiorpapers.com article has that those two PDFs do not is that it includes a history explaining the background as to why there are two different citation styles. For example, APA is the citation format for psychology papers and MLA is for literature papers. However, legal citations have one major format and a rising minor format; why did this happen? This is something special and should be addressed in an encyclopedia. Also, those two PDFs stated *how* to cite legal works but ,for *how to* information is not really an encyclopedia topic, those two sources are not that good (no other citation format article on Wikipedia has how to information as well). You stated that you dislike having to cite a site such as this but, given the context, a site who's business is writing papers should be an authority on how to write papers, especially since they do cite their sources. My request is not to white-list the whole domain--this will prevent any unjust publicity to the site from occurring--but just to white-list this article: it is of merit for a citation and not citing it would go more against Wikipedia then for it. I hope you can see it my way. Reed40 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The links I suggested address your reasons in your initial request: 1) they show examples, and 2) they g go into some depth. Given your new requirement about having a source explaining why ALWD is emerging, there are alternative sources for that too, such as http://iipsj.com/SDJ/scholarship/alwdciterev.htm for example. My point is that white-listing a blacklisted site, particularly one as spammy as that, is not the preference when alternative sources exist.
    I do agree that a site whose business is to write well-cited school papers would be an authority on citations. That goes back to your original two points. However, being an authority on writing well-cited school papers does not mean they are the authority on the history and the reasoning for the emerging popularity of ALWD citations. For that, they would have needed to refer to other sources. They reference some. If any of those are relevant, then those are preferable to cite. Superiorpapers is a WP:TERTIARY source at best, for which anything they say about subjects other than their actual business may be of questionable reliability.
    Given that alternative sources demonstrably exist, and that superiorpapers is not an established authority on the history and rationales behind the 3rd party tools they use in their business, I am inclined to decline this request, but I would like to see another admin weigh in. I have no objection to whitelisting if there's a small consensus in favor of it, but I urge any other admin reading this to look at the proposed site first (the home page and all, not just the proposed page to whitelist). ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/the-clockwork-quartet-free-music-art-steampunk-serial-and-a-table-top-game

    I want to use this article as a reference for The Clockwork Quartet. I was told I need more sources for the aforementioned page I'm trying to create and believe this is worth inclusion. It is a simple article that includes a review of the graphic novel portion of their multimedia project. I am not affiliated with The Clockwork Quartet. As a disclaimer, I wrote for Examiner.com several years ago but I am not associated with them any longer (nor was the subject even remotely related to this topic). I do understand how Examiner is usually a problem and agree with your assertion of such. Thanks for your consideration.

    examiner.com

    I am requesting this particular interview examiner.com/article/a-review-of-jonas-hellborg-s-art-metal to be whitelisted for the article I just wrote on this Jonas Hellborg album here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Metal_(album). It would be a helpful review for the references list. Thank you! Vintagenie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaccines Can Prevent Cancers

    URL: www.winarticles.net/vaccines-can-prevent-cancers/

    External link for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_vaccine

    Hello there. I'm just wondering if you could whitelist (remove from blacklist) that single page because I really find it interesting and it's really worth being listed on wikipedia. Also, it has some interesting information worth being known by everyone.

    Looking forward for your decision. Thank you and have a great day, also I'd like you to know that I really respect the community of Wikipedia!

    Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping and rape on Examiner.com

    examiner.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 www.examiner.com/article/jaycee-dugard-reappears-18-years-after-abduction-updates-arrests-searches

    I need this linked article as a reference for a wikipedia article I am writing. The examiner.com article refereced is not a puff piece nor is it spam. Please whitelist it. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. Google search reveals thousands of more reliable sources that basically say the same thing as the examiner.com article. Here are a bunch from the New York Times, for example: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/d/jaycee_dugard/index.html
    I see nothing unique about this examiner article that warrants whitelisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I thought we sorted this years ago, but I couldn't just now fix the sidebar link to encyclopediadramatica.se on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Maybe it's just because they moved from being .com ? Anyway, it's just common sense to be able to link to a website from our article about that notable website, no? -- Kendrick7talk 04:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should find a specific link for the mainpage, likely something like "encyclopediadramatica.se/wiki/Main_page", or the about page. We do have "\bencyclopediadramatica\.com\/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About\b" on our whitelist, maybe it should be changed to the se? .. Note, links, also for official sites, are a convenience for the reader, they are not necessary - there are sometimes (generally spam, abuse or malware related) reasons why everything on a site is blacklisted, and such links can not be used, ever. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The encyclopediadramatica.com domain name appears to have changed ownership to a domain squatter of some sort, and now redirects to ohinternet.com. The original Encyclopedia Dramatica site is notable enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia, but is not regarded as a reliable source. I have changed the domain name in the white list so that the "about" page may still be linked in the article.  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    biblewalks.com

    biblewalks.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

    • biblewalks.com/Sites/ElahValleyRomanRoad.html

    I would like to add this specific link to the article Highway 38 (Israel) as a reference in the History section. It is my opinion that interested readers will benefit because it provides a map of the area in question and provides firsthand, original photos of Roman milestones supporting the contention that the road was an important route during Roman times. One other specific biblewalks page was whitelisted for the English Wikipedia article, Ketef Hinnom. I believe this request exhibits identical criteria. Kind regards, --@Efrat (talk) 09:38, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com

    I am requesting that this particular interview examiner.com/article/hank-cupcakes-the-interview be whitelisted for the Wikipedia page I am creating for the band Hank & Cupcakes. This Examiner interview is the only one in which the band fully recounts their experience studying in Havana, Cuba in great detail and describes the difficulties they faced living under the totalitarian regime. Thank you! Jessica Savage (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Jessica SavageJessica Savage (talk) 19:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC) (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Jessica SavageJessica Savage (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC) (talk) 02:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)Jessica Savage (talk) 18:52, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Cable car guy

    This page is the best source I have found for images of historical posters related to a few miniature train companies, including of the Century Flyer. Please whitelist this page, for use as an external link on the National Amusement Devices page: 

    www.cable-car-guy.com/ptrain/html/ptrain_ads.html

    – SJ + 23:11, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.stringedinstrumentdatabase.comoj.com/ Stringed Instrument Database

    I work on a lot of stringed instrument articles and this is a great resource which makes a good reference but I am not allowed to add it as it seems to be blocked. I'm not sure why. Maybe because it's on a free host? Would it be at all possible to unblock this site? There's nothing spammy about it. Emma dusepo (talk) 20:54, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Analog Pussy

    analog-pussy.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

    I am currently trying to improve the wikipedia page on this band, and despite the name, there is nothing pornographic about it. That is their official site, and currently their bandcamp page is listed as their official site, which really makes me OCD. I'm trying to make this is accurate as I can, and I can't do that without listing their official site. Jobbo256 (talk) 23:26, Saturday 24 November 2012 (UTC)

    google.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

    I've created http://www.google.com/cse/home?cx=006337113803439356310:qmncn5902lc , a "Reliable Sources for horror films" custom search, I'd like to include it at User:MichaelQSchmidt/Reliable_sources_for_horror_films. The custom search points to the websites that Michael curated as reliable; it will help to locate reliable sources for horror film stubs. I'm not affiliated with Google nor any of the linked sites, and the search engine hasn't ads enabled nor any other profit scheme that I'm aware of. Diego (talk) 10:21, 23 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd like to point out that a similar customized Google search already exists and is actively used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Video games to search for reliable sources about video games (this is what gave me the idea). Diego (talk) 13:03, 24 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly why I was opposed to permitting any of the custom searches to start with, as once you allow one, you end up pressurized to allow all. I recuse from this discussion as I am not neutral. Stifle (talk) 20:37, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Does anyone oppose this request? (Other than Stifle, who has recused). Diego (talk) 12:13, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So what, Stifle? I don't see any problem. Is there any reason to not allow all of those, except for 'it is a lot of work', even if it are going to be one hundred in the end. It needs to be vetted, but for the rest this should just be a formality. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:30, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    (though, I would add that I then would expect that they get used on a official template of a project to use find sources, so it can e.g. be used in AfD's or on talkpages to aid discussion). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Anyway, plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:36, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The article on Porter Stansberry refers to a video that he made which was (according to links) widely viewed, but no URL was given so I looked it up. However, I was unable to give the URL. I think an exception should be made. The URL is www.stansberryresearch.com/pro/1011PSIENDVD/PPSIM1AJ/PR and here is the link summary:

    stansberryresearch.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 .

    Also, the article Stansberry & Associates mentions something he wrote, and again, I found the reference but was unable to put the link in. The URL is dailyreckoning.com/why-the-sec-sued-me-and-why-you-should-care but it's better to read the archived version web.archive.org/web/20120707225546/http: //dailyreckoning.com/why-the-sec-sued-me-and-why-you-should-care because the comments are formatted in a better way.

    dailyreckoning.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

    Eric Kvaalen (talk) 12:49, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm. I notice they have their own YouTube channel. Is the video not available there? I hesitate to whitelist that because of the Javascript browser trap that tries to prevent you from leaving that page.
    As for the second link, see http://www.stansberrysecfraud.com/ - it's an official site and the article exists in its entirety there, as well as lots of relevant legal documents. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I've found a Youtube for the first one: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nI-BIVWlc7A But it's not on his channel. Your link for the second thing is good, but the advantage of the link I gave is that it gives comments which rebut some of his points. The link you gave has no comments at all. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:21, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The video is also available here: http://stansberrymedia.s3.amazonaws.com/PSI/EOA/EndOfAmerica_11_30.flv
    I have the same misgivings about the one-sided nature of the second link I found. I'm inclined to whitelist the one you suggested. The one I found would still be useful for referencing legal documents. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All right. If you can whitelist dailyreckoning.com/why-the-sec-sued-me-and-why-you-should-care I'll take care of the edits. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 11:36, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to the whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gymnastics Examiner

    Please enable linking to Gymnastics Examiner in references. (url: www.examiner.com/gymnastics-in-national/blythe-lawrence)

    The purpose is to build up our Wiki gymnast articles. Male editors of Wiki may not realize but there is significant interest in gymnastics by females (national NBC coverage several times per year). However municipal sports pages don't cover this well. We also get significant traffic on our Wiki gym articles, so bumping their quality is desirable.

    Author is a stringer for Seattle Times and has a journalism degree. Tone is professional and quality is high. Majority of articles are straight reporting and any analysis is clearly identifiable and neutral. Author of the GE was given official press passes for last several World and US National championships as well as the 2012 Olympics. She is not promoting a product nor am I promoting her.

    TCO (talk) 08:21, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read the /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 20:11, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, my request shows that I did (shows thought). For instance, addressing promotionalism. I'm requesting to allow this part of Examiner, since not every writer there is the same and since this one is beneficial. For instance, if Steven Hawking wrote an astronomy Examiner, presumably it would be acceptable for the same reason that we allow blogs by professors (in their area). Just please take a look at the actual site and the lady's background and make your judgment (I'm not saying she is Hawking). There's really no question of spamming here. Maybe there is a question of RS (and I guess de facto the spam list is being used for more than spam control), but even then I really think it is fine (for instance the World Federation treated her as "press"). Take a look and thanks, man. I'm cool either way. Just don't make me feel like Oliver Twist asking for more gruel.  ;-) TCO (talk)
    In that case, this request is considered Approved; now to wait for someone to actually process and add it. Stifle (talk) 14:37, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    checkpoint-safety.com

    checkpoint-safety.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 - please whitelist this link and allow citation within Loose wheel nut indicator wikipedia article.

    Used to replace the current deadlink on Loose wheel nut indicator page for Checkpoint. Firstly, the current link on the page is dead (links to the previous version of the site), so needs replacing (currently shows a 404 version) with the updated link to clean up the article. Second, there are no reasons for the site to be blacklisted. Third, as the inventor and patent-holder of the concept of 'loose wheel nut indicators', a site reference should be authorised for users to locate more information for readers, written by the concept inventors - the linking site (checkpoint-safety.com) is not a shop, nor is it a site for selling, it is purely an informative site about wheel nut indicators and the resulting problems that can occur, which has multiple other resources which link into the topic.

    The whole site should be authorised, however at very least the page containing the first ever product of its kind should be linkable, (checkpoint-safety.com/products/indicators/checkpoint®) since the content within the article relates directly to this product. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.36.212.111 (talk • contribs) 11:21, 10 April 2013‎

    The site checkpoint-safety.com is not blacklisted on the English Wikipedia or on the meta global blacklist.
    It appears that this is collateral damage from the blacklist entry \bsafety\.com\b, which would have the effect of blacklisting any site that has "safety.com" as part of its domain name. (The site "safety.com" is blacklisted.)
    I recall fixing a problem like this once in the past; I will investigate how I did that. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:43, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. Fixed the safety.com blacklist entry so that http://checkpoint-safety.com is no longer blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    shoe-shop.com

    show-shop.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

    1. Basic UK retail site, as per M&S etc
    2. Pavers Shoes. Already used there as a reference.
    3. www.shoe-shop.com/

    Martinevans123 (talk) 21:49, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, for several reasons: It's an online shop, so nothing there is appropriate for linking; it isn't being used in Pavers Shoes and shouldn't be; we don't have an article on shoe-shop.com, so there's no reason to whitelist anything; and we don't white-list entire domains here anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    So why can't I paste it at Pavers Shoes? It's their home page. So you can't buy anything from the M&S website? Do companies have to use their company name as the name of their website? Why not use the "history" page, already used as a ref, as the website link? What's that M&S website if it's not an "entire domain"? What's "appropriate" to link to at the M&S page? Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, I apologize. When I looked at the site I didn't notice the name. OK, I agree that Pavers Shoes should have a link in the article to its own web site, shoe-shop.com. However, please understand that we can't link the home page, because that would be like white-listing the entire site. We need you to tell us a specific page to whitelist, with a full URL path. I suggest their 'about' page at www.shoe-shop.com/page/about_pavers -- is that acceptable? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:59, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You've whitelisted the entire M&S site. What's so different? Where's the "about M&S" page? Martinevans123 (talk) 16:03, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What are you talking about? If you're referring to marksandspencer.com, they aren't whitelisted because they aren't blacklisted. shoe-shop.com is blacklisted due to past abusive activity, therefore it requires a whitelist entry to let 1 link through. Entire sites don't get whitelisted once they are on the blacklist, only single pages. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:45, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am talking about this: "please understand that we can't link the home page, because that would be like white-listing the entire site." So there has been "past abusive activity" - you did not mention that before. I had assumed all commercial sites were blacklisted by default. Martinevans123 (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Good heavens, no. If we listed every commercial site, the blacklist would be so huge that Wikipedia would bog down from checking it every time someone made an edit. Everything on the blacklist was put there because of past disruption to the Wikipedia project.
    I had assumed that shoe-shop.com was blacklisted, as is nearly always the case when someone comes here to post a whitelisting request.
    HOWEVER, this may not be the case. It's puzzling.
    In some cases a site gets blacklisted as 'collateral damage' from another unrelated listing. I suspect this may be the case here. I've been investigating. I don't see shoe-shop.com in the blacklist log file. I checked both the local and global blacklists carefully, and I can't find any record of shoe-shop.com being blacklisted at all. And I don't see a record using wildcards that might match shoe-shop.com either.
    Please stand by while this is investigated. The fix here may involve more than just a whitelist entry. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:00, 8 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It's this one: (?:boot|shoe|ugg)[a-z0-9-]*(?:buy|cheap|mall|mart|outlet|shop|store|sale)[a-z0-9-]*\.(?:biz|c[no]|info|u[ks]|hk|jp|org|net) on the meta blacklist. Addition Request Almost certainly collateral damage and fine to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 17:32, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    All very intriguing. Many thanks for your help. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:44, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added \bshoe-shop\.com\b to whitelist. Thanks for your patience. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:14, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    www.dogswar.ru/images/stories/experement/sssr-6.jpg

    I want to use the link as an illustration for an entry at the List of Russian weaponry. This is the only online copy of the file. G_PViB (talk) 14:19, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    preqin.com

    preqin.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

    • URL: www.preqin.com/docs/reports/Preqin_Special_Report_Hedge_Funds_October_2012.pdf 2012
    • Page: Talk:Hedge fund

    Preqin is a research company focused on the alternative assets industry (a.k.a. hedge funds) and I'd like to use one of their reports to support a point about who invests in hedge funds on the Talk page of the article of the same name. Requesting unblock to aid the discussion there and perhaps be considered for inclusion in the article's references. WWB Too (Talk · COI) 15:10, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see the discussion there being hampered by the inability to link that page. Furthermore, I don't see a consensus emerging that this link is even a valid reference for the point you are trying to make. We don't white-list pages to "be considered for inclusion". It's being considered on Talk:Hedge fund right now. This isn't a denial of your request; it's just that I don't see a compelling reason here to white-list, yet.
    I note that other potential sources like https://www.managedfunds.org/hedge-fund-investors/who-invests/ also reference this source, although it's curious that they don't question where the preqin source got that information. There are other sources that don't reference preqin, such as this Reuters page: http://www.hedgeworld.com/education/index.cgi?page=hedge_fund_basics ~Amatulić (talk) 21:12, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    eHow.com

    Can't find in the MoS or at any other source the use of the comma between surname and suffix: eHow says it is optional at www.ehow.com /info_7926882_correct-uses-jr-sr-ii.html. --Pawyilee (talk) 15:29, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Suffix (name) covers it, but I would not have found it without eHow & Yahoo! --Pawyilee (talk) 15:36, 28 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.whitehouse.gov

    petitions.whitehouse.gov: 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 We the People (petitioning system) should have a link to the site described. The word "petitions" is triggering the filter. If it's possible to write the whitelist so it's allowed only on this one article, that would be fine. Jokestress (talk) 23:41, 15 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    We would need something like an index.htm (which can not be used to create all other links) or an about page to whitelist a specific page. Whitelisting the whole domain will allow linking of this site throughout Wikipedia (whitelistings can't be page-specific), and give the general spammy effect that similar petition sites have shown in the past. --Beetstra (public) (Dirk BeetstraT C on public computers) 04:08, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/wikipedia-user-breaks-story-of-petraeus-broadwell-affair-11-months-early

    examiner.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

    The article I am requesting is from Examiner.com and the page that I would like this to be added to is the talk page for the article on Paula Broadwell. I have noted that this website, Examiner.com, is listed at /Common requests. The reason that I believe it is useful to not and should be included is that it is an article that mentions the Wikipedia article about Paula Broadwell. It is for that reason that I believe it reaches the requirements for it to be included into the section called, "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations," on the talk page since Examiner.com is considered to be a media organization. In addition, I have also noted that since I am not logged in, it will be unlikely that this request will be considered at all along with my request being unusual. I still would like to make the effort to do so before giving up. 204.106.251.214 (talk) 08:54, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I would like to mention that I am still available for any comments and questions available for this request. Super Goku V (talk) 05:18, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are some issues with some of the details I used in this request on the 3rd, then I would like to again state that I am available to attempt to correct and improve my original request. --Super Goku V (talk) 03:55, 8 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the matter has been mentioned by multiple media organizations, please cite one of those others organizations that is more reliable. Stifle (talk) 20:18, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      I do not think that it would be possible to cite another media organization that would say Examiner.com mentioned the article. To be a bit clearer in my request, I am asking if the link could be whitelisted so that it could be place on the talk page as part of the "This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations" section. I attempted to do so a while back and was unable to do so in the proper way. In any case, thank you for giving a reply to this.  :) --Super Goku V (talk) 05:04, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      no Declined, request is not for use on an article page. Feel free to use the URL without the http: bit on the article talk page. Stifle (talk) 20:16, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    encyclopediadramatica.se/Because_of_my_syndrome

    Requested as a reference for the claim that '[she] has been the subject of online bullying' in Lizzie Velasquez. A lot of the article has been backed up by references, but this particular claim has not been yet. The biosubj has also been online bullied by a youtube video 'The Ugliest Woman in the World' which has since been taken down. The fact of her having been bullied in such manner is not a trivial or inconsequential matter, as she has themed a good deal of her public speeches and written work around what that experience has been like and how she has dealt with it. And yes, this particular ED article is somewhat an example of how downright nasty and insensitive said bullying has been.Tramadul (talk) 07:20, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined There are plenty of much better sources that mention that she's been the subject of bullying. ED does not meet WP:RS guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:00, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Galatta.com

    Here is a message to wikipedia by the CEO of Galatta regarding the block, which apparently had been ignored the time he wrote it:

    I am writing this email requesting your consideration in revoking the ban for my website Galatta.com from Wikipedia. Galatta.com is a South Indian movie portal which features the latest news on Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Hindi and English movies. From the year 2005, one of our web marketing executive without understanding the repercussions of his work went on to repeatedly add links of Galatta.comand other in-house sites to improve its performance in search engines and generate traffic. This resulted in severely damaging our reputation in Wikipedia and resulted in blocking the account and site. You can find the complete history of conversation happened between our team and Wikipedia administrators from the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisdru We stopped all such activities the moment, we were notified about the ban. As a business owner, I understand the nature of abuse and convey my sincere apologize to the Wikipedia team. It’s been 5 years and we or my people have not used Wikipedia for any spamming and I would request you to reconsider your decision. Looking forward to your positive response.

    I obtained this message, when I requested for copyright permission for their pictures as we lack pictures for South Indian actors. Please take a positive decision as soon as possible based on Galatta.com CEO message.-- Dravidian  Hero  12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a reliable source, coming from an established print magazine, and yes there are many other reliable sources, but Indian editors would like to have this site unblocked as another available major source for our film articles.-- Dravidian  Hero  17:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are other reliable sources, then use them. That is always preferable to using a blacklisted source. Here's one: http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/read-kamal-haasan-s-emotional-letter-thanking-fans-326308
    Messages from CEOs or anyone else with a conflict of interest will not be considered for general unblock efforts. We'd rather see such requests come from established, trusted, high-volume editors. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I've missed something to read before I filed this request? I can't see anything about "established, trusted, high-volume" editors. You seem to doing this way too long.-- Dravidian  Hero  03:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't miss anything on this page, no. I wrote that in the context of de-listing the entire site as you suggested, and those requests are handled over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. On the blacklist page, we have a practice of denying requests for de-listing if they originate from anyone but a trusted, high-volume editor without a conflict of interest (new, recent, low-volume editors who make de-listing requests have insufficient history to be assumed to be without a conflict of interest). See the banner at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, as well as the archives of that section.
    If you see something on galatta.com for which no alternative reliable source exists, feel free to post a new request for whitelisting here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was a request to unblock a particular site, not the entire domain or IP as one step to get the entire site unblocked. If you had read the link in my request, you would have seen, that I came directly from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'm getting fooled around since over 2 weeks from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to Meta Spam blacklist and back and forth. This is worse than any public office. Excuse my rant, but I can't believe what I'm experiencing right now.-- Dravidian  Hero  05:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you see something on galatta.com for which no alternative reliable source exists, feel free to post a new request for whitelisting here. I would never write anything in wikipedia, which has only one source. That would be cherrypicking and a clear indicator of unserious reporting.-- Dravidian  Hero  05:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely what is it that you want? One link permitted, or all links to the site unblocked? Stifle (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This one link I provided in the opening post of me.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I am minded to approve this but will leave open for another short while for any concluding discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already declined this request because alternative sources exist. I have no problem unblocking a specific page on galatta.com, but the one requested has alternatives, so there is no need to whitelist that. There is no compelling reason to white-list any page on a blacklisted site if alternative reliable sources exist. If galatta.com is itself a reliable source, and there's something on it that can't be found anywhere else (such as an interview, for example), then we can white-list such a page. But the request for the page that started this section is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    These reliable sources mention both Galatta the magazine and Galatta.com in high light, and that clearly establishes notability of Galatta overall i think. the sources are listed as follows:

    Courtesy, Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability is not the issue here. The coverage is irrelevant to the blacklisting. Notable sites do get blacklisted.
    As stated earlier, the purpose of this page is to request white-listing of a specific page on a blacklisted site, where no non-blacklisted alternatives exist. So far, this has not happened in spite of the length of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way the entire site can be whitelisted? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This site got blacklisted after serious, massive abuse of a long list (I could say massive list) of related domains by a significant list of socks. The abuser has been banned (not just that the socks and master were all blocked) through a discussion on an administrator's noticeboard. That happens after massive unresponsiveness and massive abuse without change in behaviour (generally, spam is just blacklisted, and the spammers not even necessarily blocked .. blocking accounts is generally useless since the spammer will just, as evident, make another sock). Spammers can see it coming that the sites they spam are getting blacklisted, that is not done lightly. I find it therefore very, very hard to believe that one employee did this on his own account. This must have taken a long time of spamming, a campaign.

    I also note, that this site is globally blacklisted, and none of the almost 800 mediawiki wikis, most significantly the ones from India .., have whitelisted this site. We have TWO links whitelisted on en.wikipedia (and those whitelists have been wholesale copied to three other wikis, resulting in those two links being whitelisted on 4 wikis in total; note that of those 2, only one, a blog post, is used as a general reference here locally (and I wonder if the two other references used in this article would not cover the info from the blogpost already), the other whitelisted link is currently not even used), and that is all that is whitelisted .. on all ~799 wikis. None of the other wikis have any rules regarding 'galatta'. Apparently all other wikis find better sources, and until now also en.wikipedia has found better sources almost exclusively, and in fact the one that is requested here is replaceable in itself.

    Kailash29792: regarding your question, yes, there are ways for the entire site - what I would suggest to show that there are multiple cases where whitelisting is needed for references which are not replaceable (not like apparently the one that started this thread). When there are multiple of such cases, we could consider to replace it with the whole domain, though I would still be weary seen the massiveness of the original campaign. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    detroitnews.com

    I am requesting the whitelisting of one page (news article) from detroitnews.com:

    Eh .. http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130315/POLITICS02/303150376#ixzz2NoLMYhft <- you just linked to it? So no whitelisting needed, apparently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:30, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    dominosfarms.com/features.asp

    I am requesting the whitelisting of one page (news article) from detroitnews.com:

    Eh .. http://www.dominosfarms.com/features.asp <-- you just linked to it. Nothing to whitelist here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:31, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    AP article on freerepublic.com

    I am requesting the whitelisting of one AP news article which is mirrored on freerepublic.com but that I can't find elsewhere: www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1485205/posts There are other articles which mention the renaming (so it's a credible copy of the AP article), but I want a source to support the statement at Tbilisi Airport that George Bush Ave goes towards the airport; no others that I see mention that explicitly. (diff) —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:27, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for finding the original article; your searching skills are apparently better than mine. —Alex (ASHill | talk | contribs) 23:56, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    pv-magazine.com

    I discovered that this website is blacklisted while editing Toul-Rosières Solar Park article. In particular, I would like to use www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/sonnedix-closes-90-million-financing-on-24-mw-french-pv-project_100008526/ and www.pv-magazine.com/news/details/beitrag/france--sonnedix-acquires-24-mw-stake-in-115-mw-pv-plant_100007667/ as references. Both are news stories including additional useful information and certainly not intend to be used for spamming and website promotion. As a wider issue with www.pv-magazine.com, I don't knew the exact reasons why this site was blacklisted. However, it industry-specific online publication and as such, an important source of information concerning different solar power projects. Maybe it would be possible to remove this site from the blacklist? This is the second request as the first reqest did not receive any response. Beagel (talk) 21:14, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Why it got blacklisted (massive spamming): MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April 2011#pv-magazine.com
    Why it will likely not be removed from the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/May 2011#pv-magazine.com
    Are there alternative sources for the same news? For example, http://www.pv-tech.org/news/sonnedix_acquires_24mw_pv_plant_in_france looks pretty much the same as the first link you propose to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:46, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And the second link you proposed can be substituted with http://www.powerengineeringint.com/articles/2012/07/stake-in-europes-largest-pv-plant-for-sonnedix.html
    Thank you for the links. This was serious spamming and the blaclisting was justified. However, it happened two years ago and the spammer was blocked, so I don't see any further harm at the moment. The link to the previous discussion says: "If a non-COI editor makes a later request, it could be reconsidered," so as non-COI editor I am making the request to unblock pv-magazine.com as a whole. It was correctly stated that pv-magazine.com is one of most important industry trade journal for the photovoltaic industry and as such, it is a great source of information for Wikipedia articles about solar power projects. Therefore, I request to whitelist this site. At the same time, if further violations by promoting this site occurs, I will strongly support adding it back to the blacklist. Beagel (talk) 18:21, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This page is for white-listing requests of single web pages. If you ask for complete removal over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist you will likely find that, in the opinion of most admins who work there (myself included), that two years is too short a time to trust that disruption will not resume if the site is removed, particularly because there was way more than just one spammer involved.
    Bear in mind that the importance or quality of the source has no bearing whatsoever on a decision to blacklist. Also, as long as alternative sources can be found for the same referencing purposes (as I posted above), there is no compelling reason to remove it from the blacklist.
    You are welcome to make the request for removal at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but be prepared to defend your position that de-listing will do more good than harm.
    Because alternatives are available for the specific links proposed in this whitelisting request, I am closing it as no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:39, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Youtube: 6 Cylinder "Beyond Hope"

    v=h0SsTy3w4Y0 on youtube is a song mentioned and needed as a cite on Spuzzum, British Columbia where the song is mentioned as part of the folklore about this tiny place.Skookum1 (talk) 07:47, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Beyond Hope", which is a related bit of British Columbiana, is actually the name of the album, the song is " "If you haven't been to Spuzzum (You ain't been anywhere)."". There used to be a sign in Spuzzum that said "leaving Spuzzum" on both sides; other than the local native reserve, all there ever was there is a gas station and store which burned down several years ago (a few days after my last stop there). Citing that page has always been problematic and I'm trying to find more; but because the song is mentioned it seems necessary to cite its youtube directly. There's a joke film (not filmed in Spuzzum) claimed to be set there, called "Beyond Hope" (Hope is the nearby main town, with the joke going that you had left all Hope if you were heading up the Canyon or the Crowsnest Highways or "finally seeing Hope" if you were coming down from the Interior.Skookum1 (talk) 07:57, 23 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. Nothing to do here. YouTube is not blacklisted. Note that YouTube links need to be "official", that is, if you link to any video that wasn't uploaded by the actual copyright holder, the link will likely be removed from the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Were you by any chance using the shortcut/redirect youtu.be? in that case, please expand the link to its full, as the shortcut/redirect is globally blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:21, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Helium.com

    helium.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

    Hi, (sorry for my bad english) but i need this site (helium.com/items/374209-an-overview-of-the-lesser-known-movie-awards-around-the-world) for this page: Stinkers Bad Movie Awards --Kekkomereq4 (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. See /Common requests. Helium.com has no real editorial oversight, and is not considered a reliable source for the purpose of referencing in Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:36, 31 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a web site for a San Francisco Bay Area newspaper. I am not sure why it's on the spam list. I would like to cite it as a source for theater events. I am putting together some pages for a music theater company / theater that has been operating in San Francisco for the last 12 years. Specifically, I would like to use references to an article on this site in Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Alcove_Theater and New_Musical_Theater_of_San_Francisco,_Inc. GGolovchinsky (talk) 21:51, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Please read /Common requests.
    There are many newspapers called "Examiner". The San Francisco Examiner is http://sfexaminer.com (which is not blacklisted). Examiner.com is blacklisted, and will remain so. Again, read /Common requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:35, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Relief map

    I tried adding this link (asterisks added) www.shaded-relief.com and it was blocked. It's a good map and I'd like to include it in this article List of online map services. I checked the link at Norton Safe Web[13] and it said it was okay. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 21:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Can someone unblock this address or give a reason why not. Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:13, 2 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As per the page instructions, "Please make sure you are making your request in the right section and on the right page. Add your request at the bottom of the proper section. Do not add new requests at the bottom of the page; they won't be seen." Stifle (talk) 20:13, 31 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. Nothing to do. I see no specific URL being requested for whitelisting here. If it got lost somehow, please re-post. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:33, 3 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    ezinearticles.com/?The-History-of-Pest-Control&id=133689

    ezinearticles.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

    For use in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pest_control#History

    This is the only article where I can find direct evidence that supports the History section in the Wikipedia article Pest control in that the Sumerians were one of those who used various herbs and oils as early methods of pest control. Many other English sites fail to go in such depth just claiming simply that those who used herbs as pest control were "ancient civilizations". I do however believe that the acclaimed statements are true because the other sites do state that ancient Sumerian scriptures do show findings of early pest control methods, but still doesn't go into depth like ezinearticles.GuyHimGuy (talk) 03:06, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Ezinearticles.com is a site for self-professed "experts" to self-publish articles. The author of that particular article, Vernon Stent, bills himself as a marketing consultant, not an expert on pest control. If no other source goes into as much detail, where did that author get the detail? It must have come from somewhere if he didn't make it all up.
    The pest control article states that Sumerians used sufur compounds. That's all Vernon Stent says about Sumerians in his article too, nothing about herbs and oils.
    A google search of "sumerians pest sulfur compounds" yields many more acceptable links. Even better, a Google Boods search of the same words yields many books that could be used for the same purpose as the proposed link. For example this excerpt from a 1979 publication of the US Government Printing Office would be much better than someone's self-published article.
     Not done because alternative reliable sources exist for the stated purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    reverbnation.com/RobertPtak

    This page needs to be added to Robt Ptak and also Size 14 external Links page. This is the only source of information for musician and producer Robt Ptak — Preceding unsigned comment added by Subtitlemeplease (talk • contribs) 14:56, 22 March 2013

    no Declined Looking at the article, it appears that there are available sources of information related to the article subjects. The articles also seem to have external links to the artists' social pages, so I am uncertain what value this link will provide to the article that is not covered elsewhere. Mike V • Talk 09:28, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/modelmanagement-com-s-6-tips?cid=db_articles

    Requesting URL page to be removed from blacklist. I need the URL page for my article Bokyqwer (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. That examiner article isn't coverage. It appears to be no more than a puff piece written to promote a social networking site. I suggest going directly to the original source; use http://www.modelmanagement.com/modeling-advice/modeling-tips/ instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

    Specific pages needed for Left Coast Lifter article

    re: Left Coast Lifter

    1.) gcaptain.com/left-coast-lifter-biggest-floating-crane-ever-to-hit-the-west-coast-arrives-in-san-francisco/

    2.) www.structuremag.org/article.aspx?articleID=1502

    Reason 1: Notability (article) complaint with squawk about inclusion of a blog reference, even though it is at a major newspaper website sfgate.com.

    Reason 2: Great pictures of this significant structure/device.

    Thank you, Leonard G. (talk) 01:03, 22 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/blast-returns-to-training-camp

    I am just referencing this page for the use of a page I am creating for Clarence H. "Du" Burns Arena. I am stating that the Baltimore Blast hold open practices at the facility.

    (Bes2224 (talk) 02:14, 11 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

    RosAsm Forum

    I don't know anything about the history of freeforums.org itself, but apparently their has been some abusive use of that service. However, rosasm.freeforums.org is a totally legitimate use of that service. This is the only official site that currently exists for RosAsm. All of the other sites/links for RosAsm are dead so it is important to be able to list the rosasm.freeforums.org site in the article.

    RosAsm itself is a very interesting project. It is an x86 Assembly Language with many high level features that are unique to this specific assembler+IDE. The article itself certainly could use some clean-up and NPV, but -- speaking as someone who has written a lot of assembly code -- over-all I feel that it is a worthwhile article that explains what makes RosAsm interesting. I myself have no connection to this project and only learned of it's existence today. OldCodger2 (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    uh, well, since I never received a notice that you had responded, how could I know to reply... apparently I forgot to check the Watch box. The signifcance of this site is that (as stated above) this is THE OFFICIAL site for RosAsm, this is where the developers communicate with each other, this is where you go to download the program. As far as reliable source... well, if you look at the site itself you will see that it makes it clear that it is the official site. No, there are not any other 3rd party sites that I know of that point to this site and declare it to be the official site. But there is a statement by the primary developer of the software that makes it clear that this is the site. OldCodger2 (talk) 05:23, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, the article is currently flagged for failing to cite external references. But the most important reference cannot be added to the article because for some inexplicable reason, the link is being flagged as spam. So it is a catch-22 situation... OldCodger2 (talk) 05:25, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    here, try this link: rosasm.freeforums.org/rosasm-official-updates-19-09-2-012-t10.html this is where the RosAsm project is PUBLISHED by it's Authors. Yes it is a very informal website, but it is the only existing official website where there is active on-going development. OldCodger2 (talk) 05:47, 17 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Stifle declined this request because nobody showed how this is a reliable source.
    I would have declined it because no URL was specified for white-listing.
    This page isn't for requesting removal of entire sites from the blacklist, it's for requesting that a specific link on a blacklisted site be allowed for use in a specific article.
    Are you suggesting white-listing that link in your last paragraph? It's just a page from a forum. I'm not questioning that the site is "official", but shouldn't we have a more representative link for use in an article. I suggest rosasm.freeforums.org/index.php. Would that be sufficient? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 18 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Amatulic, thank you for taking an interest in this topic. In response to your questions... I did not provide an actual url because the spam filter works on this page as well, it is simply not possible for me to enter that url anywhere inside wikipedia. The site for RosAsm as stated above is rosasm.freeforums.org. And yes, IMHO the entire site/subdomain ought to be unblocked. Apparently what is being blocked is the entire domain of freeforums.org this blocking was probably based on a few abusive sites/subdomains that are also hosted by them. The problem with the approach of blocking all of freeforums.org is that it is massive overkill which is also blocking lots of legitimate sites such as this one. Would you block all of http://WordPress.com because of a few abusive blogs? Someone with access to such info ought to review why specifically freeforums.org is being blocked and consider narrowing the scope of that blocking. As far as references to RosAsm from other sites... a lot of sites that used to exist which discussed RosAsm have vanished. This is often the case with even major projects, the internet is a fickle and dynamic place. The developer who started the project has left, but a community of other interested developers and users are carrying on the work. If you want to discuss the notability of RosAsm and whether or not it deserves an article given how little attention it has attracted then please see the RosAsm talk page where I make some observations about this... bottom line, I feel that the innovative approach being taken does make it a notable version of assembly language. and I am someone who has written a lot of assembly language. OldCodger2 (talk) 23:21, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    By the way, including index.php as part of the link is bad form from a web design standpoint. Suppose that tomorrow they renamed the page to index.html or home.php or any of a dozen other perfectly legitimate file names. In RESTful web design the actual file names should not be part of the link. The link should specify the intent not the mechanism. In this case, the intent is the home page of the forums. That other link I provided was in response to the request to show that this was indeed the official site. Perhaps I should point out again that I am in no way associated with the RosAsm project itself. I am a neutral 3rd party who has considerable expertise in the subject of assembly languages and I find RosAsm to be very interesting. For more info about me see my wikipedia user page OldCodger2 (talk) 23:34, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Some Links: showing that the rosasm.freeforums.org is official

    OldCodger2 (talk) 03:55, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm still considering this. I'll address each of your points.
    • You could have easily provided a URL, as many others have done on this page, by omitting the http prefix.
    • freeforums.org in its entirety is blocked, yes. Freeforums.org undoubtedly hosts several "official" forums for various groups or causes. That is irrelevant. We had a massive problem with it in the past, not just "a few abusive sites/subdomains that are also hosted by them" but many, with no sign of stopping. We don't have that problem with Blogspot or Wordpress. See MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2008#freeforums.org. So yes, the domain deserves to be blacklisted as a whole.
    • There is no requirement for a REST resource to invariably be a clean URL, but that's a discussion best held elsewhere. In any case we can probably agree that a REST resource shouldn't be a root URL either. That's even worse design practice than using file names. For the whitelist, including index.php, index.html, or any other definite URL happens to be our practice. It isn't our problem if a site re-blacklists itself by changing its URL naming. In that event, we can always fix the whitelist entry. The whitelist is intended for white-listing specific pages on blacklisted domains, and for that we need a specific URL path — a path name, not just a domain name. To whitelist a home page or root page, by necessity the URL path must include a file name for the whitelist to function properly as a whitelist for pages rather than domains.
    • As I said earlier, I am not questioning that the forum is official. That isn't the issue here.
    WP:ELNO wouldn't allow the use of any arbitrary link on a domain to be used as a reference due to it consisting entirely of user-generated content. A general purpose link to the forum in the RosAsm article would be acceptable and appropriate for whitelisting, which is why I proposed the index.php page. I ask again, would that be sufficient for the RosAsm article? ~Amatulić (talk) 08:08, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi Amatulic, we seem to have different concepts of what constitutes a link, but yes, rosasm.freeforums.org/index.php would be fine if that is what is required for the link. Thank you for giving this your consideration. OldCodger2 (talk) 03:22, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    fotolia.com for Fotolia

    The article Fotolia needs to be whitelisted so that we can add it as the official website for the subject.

    fotolia.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

    The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 18:13, 6 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Looks like someone already added it in a section above. The Anonymouse (talk • contribs) 05:23, 12 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    casarealportuguesa.org

    casarealportuguesa.org: 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

    casarealportuguesa.org/dynamicdata/documentos.asp

    Hello, I'd like to request the unblocking of the website casarealportuguesa.org. I ask this because I avidly work on royalist and historical articles pertaining to Portugal, and the site is the official site of the current Duke of Braganza, Duarte Pio. I am currently working on expanding his article, and I'm trying to explain the various roles the Duke holds, as well as trying to present both sides of arguments between the Duke and the Portuguese Republic. The whole website's unblocking would be quite useful, as I could then use the various pages on the site for various articles here on wiki, such as Afonso, Prince of Beira and Isabel, Duchess of Braganza, but it would be the most useful to the article of Duarte Pio and the House of Braganza. On the site, there is an archive of his previous roles, agendas, events, and communiqués, which would help me present the Duke's roles, activities, and his side to quarrels. I appreciate any and all feedback, and I hope that we can work together so that these articles on Wikipedia can be that much more informative and sourced. Thank you, Cristiano Tomás (talk) 23:02, 12 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    aceshowbiz.com story on Jodie Foster

    Foster broke up with her long-time girlfriend, Cydney Bernard, in 2008. Jodie and Cydney had been dating since www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00016024.html. People are treating her 2013 speech about her sexuality as a "coming out speech" when in reality she came out publicly (and broke up with her partner) wuite a while ago. Just the page needs to be whitelisted. --DHeyward (talk) 17:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    newtown-conspiracy-theory-fau-professor-insists-on-cover-up

    examiner.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 This is important as it contains info related to James Tracy's conspiracy theory that arose after the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting. The aforementioned article would benefit from that page's whitelisting. Image2012 (talk) 12:25, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    smashinginterviews.com

    smashinginterviews.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

    I am requesting that this specific article: smashinginterviews.com/interviews/athletes/alexis-lexi-thompson-interview-an-american-wunderkind be allowed to be used as a reference in the article Lexi Thompson. This is a legitimate interview with the subject of the article, Lexi Thompson, and contains information that will help improve the article by providing accurate, referenced facts. I am only requesting whitelisting for this specific URL, not for the entire site. --Crunch (talk) 23:03, 28 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    netzsch-thermal-analysis.com

    We were blacklisted some time ago, because one of our competitors, the owner of www.thermal-analysis.com, were blacklisted because of spamming. The regex entry of his domain in the blacklist is targeting our domain also, because it bans every domain which includes the term "thermal-analysis.com". Since we are not responsible or part of the company, which domain is "www.thermal-analysis.com" in any way, we would like to request a whitelisting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.113.98.211 (talk • contribs) 12:48, 18 March 2013‎

    The collateral damage is unfortunate. However:
    • Wikipedia has no article on Netzsch, so there is no need to whitelist any page on your site for the purpose of referencing such an article.
    • In looking over the website netzsch-thermal-analysis.com, I see nothing there that would conceivably be used as a reference or citation in any other Wikipedia article.
    We generally don't accept requests from site owners or anyone with a conflict of interest, but there have been exceptions. Generally we want such requests to come from trusted, high-volume contributors. Can you explain what encyclopedic purpose would be served to create a whitelist exception for your website, from the perspective of Wikipedia's (not Netzsch's) goals? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined due to lack of reply. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Google?

    www.google.ca: 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

    • google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CDAQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jcrinc.com%2Fcommon%2FPDFs%2Ffpdfs%2Fpubs%2Fpdfs%2FJCReqs%2FJCP-06-09-S6.pdf&ei=RsSCUbfuFuj-igKn5IGoAg&usg=AFQjCNHkN7umGgf9pwnSVkVvNWvRiKHxXg&bvm=bv.45960087,d.cGE

    I request the whitelisting of the above mentioned page so that it can be linked as a source for the article physician. It is a link to a pdf document published by the The Joint Commission, but because it is hosted through google it seems to be blocked. There may be a more appropriate way to make this document available to readers, so I am open to suggestions if this is not the correct approach. Thanks and regards, Puhlaa (talk) 21:05, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. There is no reason for Wikipedia to use a Google redirect link for any page on the internet. Please use the direct link instead: http://www.jcrinc.com/common/PDFs/fpdfs/pubs/pdfs/JCReqs/JCP-06-09-S6.pdf — which isn't blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:28, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Sounds good, no need to use a google redirect - got it! Thanks Puhlaa (talk) 01:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or stale requests

    blog.360cities.net

    The article Largest_photographs_in_the_world had numerous links to this site, which were not just added recently. A new largest photo has been made, and an inexperienced editor made a couple of small mistakes while adding the information about it. I was trying to tidy up after the other editor, but the spam filter wouldn't let me because of the 360cities links. The filter falsely said that I was adding links to blog.360cities.net. The material I was trying to change did not include those links. It's in a different part of the article. I thought I might be able to get around the filter by just editing a section that doesn't have the forbidden link, but no, that wasn't allowed either. Finally I did this and made the changes I wanted to make. —rybec 02:12, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    We could get away with
    • www.360_cities.net/london-photo-en.html
    • blog.360_cities.net/prague-18-gigapixels-how-it-was-made/
    I think. Looking further. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah .. that was it: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2011_Archive_Nov_1#360cities.net - soliciting to spam Wikipedia and even offering revenue for it. Unfortunately, the spamming was never cleaned up (I guess that that is needed ..). Some wikis have it blacklisted, and it is on meta (probably that was done after some local blacklisting was already in place). I would suggest to whitelist the reference (IF nothing better can be found .. actually, we are not a howto on how to make a panorama .. and I don't think a blog is a suitable reference for such things, but well), and remove all external links. I should however say, that they did change their 'how to contribute to Wikipedia' .. still it gives an incentive through their revenues, and they still suggest people to get their links on Wikipedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for checking into this. I had only searched the archives of this page. The underscores are something I added to circumvent the filter—sorry it wasn't clear from the diff. I see the reason for blacklisting this site. —rybec 05:24, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 20:10, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Army Guide Website

    army-guide.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

    • army-guide.com/rus/product4591.html

    I request the whitelisting of the above page

    It is quite informative and required for being used as a reference.. --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 17:35, 20 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Besides , please also consider unblocking the entire website (if possible) .. The information it supplies is unique and reliable

    --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 08:09, 21 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reliable, maybe. Unique? Not really. There are plenty of non-blacklisted sites in English with coverage of this vehicle, such as http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/defence_industry_of_pakistan_hit_will_unveiled_the_new_mrap_burraq_in_the_next_few_months_2003133.html - would that suffice? Non-blacklisted alternatives should always be used when possible. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This article on army guide provides info about its US approval, its crew , doors , suspension and other facilities including engine power, landing, etc ... Army Recognition doesn't provide those details ..

    Also, please let me know if this ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8573918875/in/photostream/lightbox/ ) can be used as a reference..

    The army guide article a-g.com/rus/product4591.html is required to be used as a reference for http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burraq_MRAP

    So, please consider unblocking the article of Burraq MRAP on the website i.e /rus/product4591.html in order to make the article well sourced..

    Also can I know why the website has been blacklisted? Spam? Thanks

    --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 08:56, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    "Provides info about its crew, doors, suspension, etc." That's why I questioned the reliability of this source. This vehicle is still under wraps, and details have not been announced by the Pakistani government or the company developing the vehicle. Where is army-guide.com getting this stuff? I'd rather see articles referencing official sources that contain established up to date information, rather than unofficial sources displaying apparent speculation. I am unconvinced that this is a reliable source.
    As to why it is blacklisted, it's due to this spam case.
    We cannot verify the authenticity of anything posted on Flickr, because Flickr contains only user-generated content and is therefore not citable. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please compare the information provided by the army guide Burraq MRAP article with:

    http://www.defensenews.com/article/20130319/DEFREG04/303190011/Pakistan-Unveil-MRAP-Vehicle

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8573918875/in/photostream/lightbox/

    http://www.armyrecognition.com/march_2013_news_defence_army_military_industry_uk/defence_industry_of_pakistan_hit_will_unveiled_the_new_mrap_burraq_in_the_next_few_months_2003133.html

    Do you find any contradicting material?

    ... About Flickr, I mean to say the information i.e. the photo ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8575012784/in/photostream/lightbox/ ) & Burraq Specifications ( http://www.flickr.com/photos/94218890@N03/8573918875/in/photostream/lightbox/ ) have been released by Heavy Industries Taxila and uploaded on forums ( http://www.defence.pk/forums/pakistan-defence-industry/241067-pakistan-unveil-mrap-vehicle.html ) , photobucket, tinypic ( http://oi50.tinypic.com/1rdbbm.jpg ) & flickr ...Heavy Industries Taxila doesn't have a website.. I have seen photos from many photo sharing websites being used as reference in wikipedia (e.g ,SEE Al-Hadeed) ..

    --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 17:30, 22 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, please consider the improvements made by the website, i.e, no pop-ups and repeated ads, etc... The information is 100 % reliable ....

    --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 17:03, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If alternatives exist for the army-guide information you propose to whitelist, then use those alternatives. And yes, I see contradicting material, such as specs that haven't been officially released. As such, I don't see how army-guide.com can possibly be considered a reliable source.
    As for photos reposted on forums and flickr, we cannot link to content that may be a copyright violation, unless it can be verified that the uploader of the photos actually owns the copyright.
    I must ask, since you seem familiar with the improvements to the web site, what is your association with it? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 25 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I am in no way associated or linked with army guide website as you suspect... This page http://www.army-guide.com/eng/product3761.html was earlier unblocked to be used on some wiki page according to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist .. Who white-listed it if army guide isn't a reliable source ..  ?? A large number of websites supply details of M101 howitzer ..

    Also, let me clear that I am creating this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_creation/Burraq_MRAP and I require some content to be verified by the above mentioned link .. All your allegations of my association with army guide website are baseless.

    And for the Flickr photo mentioning Burraq Specifications , why is a copyright required when wiki cites info from websites having copyright . Note that the flickr photo is being linked as a reference and not being uploaded on wikipedia as a photo (with copyright violation) .. Its authenticity is undisputed..

    Consider white-listing the article (For Burraq) for the following reasons:

    • High Reliability & M101 howitzer article already white-listed on Wikipedia (despite other options too).
    • No Contradiction (with some info also provided by other websites).
    • No spam (at least from the Burraq MRAP Article).

    Are you still unconvinced ???

    --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 10:43, 26 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Still unconvinced. I will go over your points one by one.
    • Any "allegations" about a conflict of interest are in your own mind. All I did was ask a question. You answered. Done.
    • You require certain content to be verified for an article you're creating, and that's fine. Use alternative verifiable sources. They demonstrably exist, as shown above; therefore, there is no need to white-list a page on a blacklisted site that has already demonstrated its unreliability by publishing content based on heresay rather than official sources.
    • Two comments on the side-issue of citing pictures on Flickr:
      • The authenticity of any picture on Flickr is subject to dispute. See WP:ELNO #10. Wikipedia article shouldn't link to sites that consist of 100% user generated content. I can print up an official looking document in 10 minutes and upload it to Flickr. So what? Your assertion that "its authenticity is undisputed" is a false statement. It is disputed because it is unverifiable. Such is the nature of sites where users create the content. That is why Wikipedia can't cite itself.
      • Wikipedia has a legal policy that says explicitly: "if you know or reasonably suspect that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work." Photographs of copyrighted works uploaded to Flickr are very likely copyright violations. We cannot link to such photos according to Wikipedia policy. See the shortcut WP:COPYLINK. The fact that some other article currently violates this policy has no weight here; rather it's an argument for fixing that article rather than compounding the problem with yet another link to a copyright violation.
    • The fact that army-guide.com doesn't contradict other sources for "some info" is irrelevant. The fact remains that it published information that, at the time of publication, was not available in any reliable sources. That fact alone makes it an unreliable source. The fact that a couple other articles manage to link to army-guide.com, is also irrelevant.
    • Not sure what you mean by "no spam". The site is blacklisted for that very reason. If you are referring to no ads on the site, well, that is irrelevant too.
    • As to your final point about putting a reference on the talk page, you can always include the link without the leading 'http:'.
    • Finally, if you know the content of an identifiable authoritative source (like a government document that is not available online), you can always still cite it. Links are for convenience, not mandatory for citations.
    You may consider this request "provisionally declined", but I will leave it open for a time if other administrators have a different viewpoint and interpretation. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    The document has two pages & is released by HIT ,, So can I put "Burraq MRAP - Specifications (Document)" Publisher: Heavy Industries Taxila between the ref tags ..

    And what's your say on the M101 howitzer white-listed page ..

    Any page which has low reliability isn't white-listed on wikipedia...Then why M101 , why not Burraq ?????? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theoccupiedkashmir (talk • contribs) 10:10, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    --Theoccupiedkashmir (talk) 29 March 2013 (UTC)

    No other admin is available to give a view here .. Please consider unblocking the page on the basis of providing a reference for Burraq article & M101 howitzer page (white-listed earlier on wikipedia) .............. I am waiting for the final decision ... --Maxx786 (talk) 16:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    First, that the site is not contradicting other sites does not mean anything about information which is not mentioned on the other sites. That part may still be unreliable, or contradict in the future. It may also not contradict things in the future, sure, but that still does not make it reliable now.
    Spam is not related to the content that is on a page, spam is related to how links were added. We had, and still regularly have, very distinguished sites being pushed by their owners. That action is the spam, whatever the site has to say, that goes for porn sites, that goes for news agencies. And note that there are porn-sites which have not been pushed/spammed, and which are hence not blacklisted. They get blacklisted after the abuse, and that is what happened here. However, that the site is not a reliable source is not helping its cause.
    That the other page is whitelisted is likely because it stands on its own merits. Comparisons like this are the basis for WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS.
    We base our content on reliable information. The information you want to include is not released yet, and including it here, even based on a vague source, would be a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. You can not reliably source that information, hence it should not be on Wikipedia (yet). For that reason, I do not see any reason why this should be whitelisted, there is enough information from reliable sites to base the article on (and if that is not even the case, maybe the subject is not ready for Wikipedia, yet). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:48, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    If it is so , then I withdraw the request. Thanks  Request withdrawn --Maxx786 (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    What is taking so long?

    I want to cite Blythe. Do we need more moderators here?TCO (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perennial problem, but the answer is: Yes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gymnastics Examiner still not processed 3 months later. Did you all change your mind? There is no funny business. It has a very sober tone. Is run by a journalist who has press passes to major events (the USAG federation uses social media...Wiki should even look into some liason for photos). I'm not a political POV person or someone trying to make money or the like.TCO (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (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]

    If your whitelist request falls under one of these two categories, the admins will be more willing to have the source whitelisted if you can acheive consensus at one of the above noticeboards. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=560310692"