MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 13:33, 9 June 2014

The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following:

The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|612212231#section_name}}

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

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

Indicators
Request completed:
Done	{{Done}}
Stale	{{StaleIP}}
Request withdrawn	{{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

This page has an administrative backlog that requires the attention of willing administrators.
Please replace this notice with {{no admin backlog}} when the backlog is cleared.

Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on reliability, please ask for opinions on the Reliable sources noticeboard, to confirm that it does meet that guideline, before submitting your whitelisting request here. In your request, link to the confirming discussion on that noticeboard.

Likewise, if you have an external link that you are uncertain meets Wikipedia's guideline on external links, please get confirmation on the External links noticeboard before submitting your whitelisting request here.

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 achieve consensus at one of the above noticeboards.

Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)

This section is for proposing that a web page be whitelisted; add new entries at the bottom of this section. Completed requests will be marked with an appropriate Indicator then archived.

Instructions to requesters:

Explain why the site should be whitelisted.
Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.
Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.
- Please use the basic URL so that there is no link (www.google.ca, not http://www.google.ca).
- Please add a {{LinkSummary|example.org}} (replace example.org with the domain your specific url resides on, and remove the 'www.' part, and everything following the domain-name). This inserts a set of links that helps in finding relevant information and related discussion on the requested site.

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

dot.tk

dot.tk: 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 an appropriate link in the articles Tokelau and .tk, as revenue from the domain forms a significant part of the Tokelauan economy. I have no problem with it being blacklisted on all other articles. It may be sufficient to whitelist only www.dot.tk/en/doc_tcfree_v360.pdf (the terms and conditions document) for Tokelau, but both this and the base url are needed for .tk.-gadfium 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Please see /Common requests - we need a index.htm or about page (I prefer not to use the pdf as the landing page, that may be a bit too much, though if you need it as a reference, then we add that as well). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

www.dot.tk in general should be whitelisted as it is run by a government entity. The landing page is a place users can register, the PDF and other links as noted in the .tk page are of use to potential users as well as casual users. Furthermore, it should be argued that .tk in general should not be globally blacklisted as it is a valid normal TLD and it is discouraging to potential users to have it blanket-blacklisted rather than building a more appropriate blacklist of offending links. 198.164.211.229 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it belongs on Tokelau (reading up; this is not the official website of Tokelau!), it may belong indeed on .tk (it is the official homepage of the domain). Indeed considering \dot\.tk$.

No, .tk should be blacklisted, since really the far, far majority of their sites are 'redirect' sites (in different forms). There is generally only very little information really hosted on sites on .tk, and what there is is then often also of very limited use (one page on one wiki). It are often the not too notable subjects that get their own .tk and often those subjects have those pages 'redirected' to their free webspace server www.blah.com/user/web/<subjectname> (for which they want an 'own' url), and even if they do host their material completely on .tk, the reason that they don't get their own .com (or whatever tld) is that they are small and don't want to spend all that money for registration. Wikimedia would not use a .tk either, they buy wikimedia.org. Blacklisting the offending links is a solution, but we keep running after the (albeit sometimmes good-faith, sometimes good-faith but unintentionally promoting, sometimes maliciously spamming) editors cleaning up their material. Whitelisting is more efficient, and it seems we don't have any .tk whitelisted (suggesting that the rules only catch very few really needed cases). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of whether .tk as a whole should be blacklisted, any of the current links on the .tk article are legit and should be whitelisted. The current situation on that article is downright ridiculous. JulianFT (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, the .tk article is currently complaining about it's own registrar. Maybe not .tk, but the actual website www.dot.tk should probably be whitelisted. Anish7 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As remarked earlier, please see /Common requests: please give an index.htm or about-page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: whitelisting dot.tk shouldnt cause any issues as you cannot register subdomains of that. only other *.tk domains. Werieth (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done for now: Per Dirk, please give an index.htm or about-page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: You are not qualified to make the close. An index.php isnt needed whitelisting dot.tk will not cause the issues that /Common requests causes. Whitelisting a specific domain, when a TDL is blacklisted will not cause any issues. Whitelisting a specific domain which is proven to be acceptable shouldnt be this much of a headache. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly disqualifies me from closing this request again? There is no policy saying that a non-administrator can't close requests for changes to interface messages. An administrator answered that without a usable landing page, this will not be added to the whitelist. So, I'd say either come up with a suitable landing page, or quit asking. It is becoming fairly disruptive. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How about WP:CIR? You are the one being disruptive, whitelisting dot.tk will not cause the issues that Beetstra raised. Werieth (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. So, Werieth, you want to take Dirk to WP:AN/I for a WP:CIR review? He or she gave you an answer as an administrator. They also said that they think it should be on the blacklist instead of the whitelist so regardless of whether or not you think whitelisting dot.tk will not cause the issues that /Common requests causes, this request is still consensus which means that a consensus needs to be achieved before this edit request template can be used per WP:PER. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Technical 13: CIR Applies to you. Do not re-close this, I raised the issue with Beetstra and they never responded. With their lack of response I used the edit protected. Since you dont have the competence to actually fix the issue please stop responding to it. Repeatedly re-closing a request is disruptive especially when you where asked not to. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, continuously reopening a request when it was has been closed telling you to obtain a consensus before reopening per the WP:PER policy is disruptive, but I'll go to AN and request a formal close by an administrator to make you happy. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 18:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Its a 5:1 ratio with the only person objecting is Beetstra. And the issue that he raised about possible redirects to other sites which happens with a random *.tk domains, with whitelisting dot.tk those problems dont exist. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is spiraling out of control. Bottom line: Beetstra already told Werieth that a URL path is needed. And because none was provided, Technical 13 was not out of line in closing this.

However, in keeping with standard practice here, we generally whitelist an 'about' page for a blacklisted domain. I agree with Beetstra that an actual URL path is needed, and I do not see any reason to trust the dot.tk company to never offer subdomains, since they seem to be in the business of selling .tk domains. Therefore, I am willing to whitelist www.dot.tk/en/aboutdottk.html in keeping with our standard practice. If that is not acceptable, then it's best to close this section as declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dot.tk has been around for a very long time in a stable format selling TLDs .tk's If at some point they do start selling sub-domains, which I really doubt they will the whitelist can be adjusted then. Until such a time we shouldn't have to whitelist specific URLs. Its similar to the co.uk TLD there are a lot of bad apples, but when a known good domain is identified we shouldnt have to dick around with every link on a trusted site. Whitelisting \bdot.tk\b is a specific URL. They have been in operation for years without using subdmains of *.dot.tk. If you really want specific URLs I listed a few below. But seriously your blocking a domain registrar with no history of abusive behavior by themselves (just abuse by clients who spammed links to whatever their specific site is), for what reason? In fear of something which has a very very small possibility of ever happening? Werieth (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

http://dot.tk/en/index.html?lang=en http://www.dot.tk/en/doc_disputepolicy_v300.pdf http://www.dot.tk/en/doc_tcfree_v350.pdf http://www.dot.tk/en/doc_tcfree_v360.pdf http://www.dot.tk(?![/:]) http://www.dot.tk/en/dottk_pressrelease_12272011_en.pdf http://www.dot.tk/en/pagef00.html http://www.dot.tk/en/policies.html PS, dot.tk has been around since 1997, thats 17 years of a track record for not using sub-domains. You really think that they are going to make such a radical change? and so what if that happens all we have to do then is remove the whitelist entry which isnt that big of a deal. Werieth (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Whitelisting \bdot\.tk\b won't work because it will also let through any domain that happens to include *dot.tk, (like mydot.tk) which dot.tk does not own. We've had this problem before. That's why we need a specific path.

(?<=//)www\.dot\.tk\b might work, however (we're using similar patterns in the blacklist to avoid some false hits). Since Beetstra originally answered here, I'd like him to comment before any action is taken. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Actually that is incorrect, \bdot\.tk\b does not whitelist *dot.tk. the \b is a word boundary, mydot.tk wouldnt be allowed. Werieth (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I missed the hyphen, sorry. I meant my-dot.tk would still be allowed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Then, (?!-)\bdot\.tk\b should do it. Werieth (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

tanners-wines.co.uk/

tanners-wines.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

This site was blacklisted in February 2008 when it was hacked. However it is now safe and well maintained. There is a wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanners_(company) which from a usability perspective would benefit from a link to the actual Tanners site. Having requested that the site be removed from the blacklist it was suggested by User:Beetstra that I apply for the whitelisting of an about page- thusly I request that the page tanners- wines.co.uk/tanners-story be whitelisted. CCarson789 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hacked? No, it was spammed. That is something completely different, it may have been hacked, but I don't see that as the reason why it was blacklisted.

I get to www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story, tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story seems to redirect to the top level. I'll leave this up for a second opinion. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for your consideration. Has there been any news on the second opinion? User:Beetstra CCarson789 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

When I go to www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story it doesn't redirect to the top. I would like to know what Beetstra is seeing before we make a decision here. If it's now working fine for other admins, I have no objection to whitelisting www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been any further news on this request? User:Beetstra User:Amatulic CCarson789 (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It's been over 2 months since we have had any update on the whitelisting of this page (www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story). Please can you inform me on the latest news regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCarson789 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC) CCarson789 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The URL of the top page is www.tanners-wines.co.uk/index.php ; how about whitelisting this? (This is not a request; it's merely a question/suggestion.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

business-review\.com\b

pharmaceutical-business-review.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

http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/companies/gentiva_health_services_inc

This page offers summarized information on Gentiva Health Services. I see nothing wrong with the page. It offers news and updates from the pharmaceutical industry. The site focuses on prescription drugs Theses updates include new drug research, new regulations, company news, industry news. The site offers information regarding industry regulations. There are pages on medical devices, packing regulations, inward investments, medical automation advancements, research, service and clinical trials, drug rules, news, and regulations, as well as a page on drug production and manufacturing. I read the above mention of the page, but still believe the information to be helpful at least as a starting place for more research. For these reasons, I request that all http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/ Pharmaceutical Business Review pages, (pages categorized as business-review\.com\b), and all related pages are white listed. Thanks! Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

nasty bot - www.andtan.newmail.ru/list/

andtan.newmail.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
newmail.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

What is wrong with:

www.andtan.newmail.ru/list/

It should not be kicking up problems on article pages for busy people who have plenty of other things to do to try to deal with, chaee down wrong paths, etc. Fix the bot or at least get this site off the blacklist. What a pain in the butt this bot crud is. P0M (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The bot perfectly pointed you to the right place, and has rightfully shown you that there is a link that is in use that is blacklisted. As links are generally blacklisted because they were abused, can you tell us why you think that this link should be whitelsited? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This is globally blacklisted due to newmail.ru; see m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2011-01#newmail.ru. I would suggest to locally whitelist the specific link. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I checked the site. It has no spam and it didn't do anything to my Macintosh computer. P0M (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I can't reproduce the problem but I went from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linyphiidae to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js

It was very late at night after about a week trying to deal with a recalcitrant editor disrupting another page, so I do not remember which link or series of links led to that page. Evidently it is working o.k. now. Even so, the template for that bot's announcement might be improved. When I looked at it now all I could think to do was to try each link. None of them lead here, by the way, at least not directly. Hopefully I will never have to deal with this stuff again. P0M (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The link left on the page is to Template:Blacklisted-links - which explains you which actions to take, with a preference to ask for whitelisting, but alternatively de-blacklisting. I think that is a better solution than sending people directly to the whitelist, because, maybe, de-blacklisting is a better solution.

This is not about the site containing spam, this is about the site being spammed/abused/pushed, which happened for newmail.ru. The site in question indeed looks fine, hence my suggestion to whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

homelesshub.ca/

homelesshub.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

I do not understand why I am unable to use this very importance, Toronto's York university-based source for related articles on homelessness in Canada, poverty in Canada, affordability of housing in Canada. Stephen Gaetz, Alex Himelfarb are acclaimed academics in Canada in these areas. Those who receive SSHRC grants are acknowledged in the academic community. They are on the Board of Canada's equivalent of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.oceanflynn 16:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

preposterousuniverse.com

preposterousuniverse.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

Links to add:

preposterousuniverse.com/
preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/
preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/
preposterousuniverse.com/particle/
preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/moments04/
preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

Used on page:

Sean M. Carroll

preposterousuniverse.com is Sean M. Carroll's personal site, and the blacklisted links notice at the top of his Wikipedia article caused him to post at Cyberpower678's talk page about it. The site seems obviously appropriate to link to from his article, as it can be used as a primary source for statements by him etc., as well as for the link to his official site. However, according to the edit summary from when the site was blacklisted, it was being used by multiple spambots. So whitelisting is probably the best way to go about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ^{♪ talk ♪} 04:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

cbronline

cbronline.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

All entries removed in this edit to RS/6000. All are RS and the only sources for that info presently on the page; no evidence they were added as spam. List of links:

www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_ready_to_ship_tadpoles_powerpc_book
www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_joins_workstation_price_war_with_4000_rs6000_m20
www.cbronline.com/news/rs6000_offers_32_bit_kickers_nc_support_no_re_branding
www.cbronline.com/news/ibms_bonuspak_for_os390_provides_set_of_internet_tools_full_protection_from_the_year_2000
www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_aix_launch_more_waffle_than_hard_facts

The above were initially added by User:Rilak some 5 years ago. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also I'd like three entries on a different page (NEC V60) to be whitelisted

www.cbronline.com/news/nec_launches_v80_answer_to_intels_80486
www.cbronline.com/news/digital_research_launches_flexos_286_real_time_manufacturing_operating_system
www.cbronline.com/news/nec_may_have_the_edge_with_its_930000_transistor_v80_answer_to_intels_80486 (this is liked through a google cached version)

I've added the last three because no online alternatives could be found to cite these facts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Another existing link in Locus Computing Corporation:

www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_taps_locus_for_key_aux_unix_features_tcf_file_system

Sole reference for some facts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In VAXstation, a similar situation exists with RS/6000 (page almost entirely written by User:Rilak), with several CBR news pieces being the sole references for the introduction dates of various models etc. Links:

www.cbronline.com/news/dec_claims_wipeout_for_sun4_with_3100_europe_will_have_its_own_ms_dos_machines
www.cbronline.com/news/dec_creates_workstation_animators_designers_crave_with_87700_vaxstation_8000
www.cbronline.com/news/dec_stresses_applications_portability_better_price_performance_than_risc_with_new_vaxes
www.cbronline.com/news/dec_vax_model_60_price_announcements
www.cbronline.com/news/three_microvax_iis_support_8250_in_dec_vaxstation_8000

No evidence these were added as spam. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In Altos Computer Systems

www.cbronline.com/news/acer_finally_unifies_altos_computer_systemslines_with_its_own_creating_the_aceraltos_series

Could not find another online source for this fact. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In HP 9000, the following links are used as inline citations in some confusing style (just the title given inline, then the links given in the ref section). The problem can't be fixed until the following are whitelisted:

www.cbronline.com/news/adds_new_workstations_industrial_unix_packages
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_has_first_vme_single_board_risc_computer
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packards_gecko_line_due_later_this_month_to_feature_precision_architecture_risc_7100lc_1
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_71260_station_offers_stunning_spec_for_4000
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_adds_742rt_hp_rt_operating_system_hard_hat_700s
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_adds_board_level_hp9000_742i
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_announcements_8
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_fortifies_its_unix_mid_range
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_fuels_drive_to_low_end_unix_invades_suns_commercial_ground_1
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_unleashes_its_rs6000_killers
www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_unveils_d_class_general_purpose_servers_to_replace_the_e_class_models
www.cbronline.com/news/hp_launches_commercial_pa_8000_lines
www.cbronline.com/news/hp_launches_mid_range_9000_with_1mb_of_cache_memory
www.cbronline.com/news/hp_overhauls_its_low_end_unix_servers_with_the_pa_7300lc_1
www.cbronline.com/news/mpower_multimedia_software_accompanies_new_hp_9000_700s

The HP 9000 page/citations are also mostly the work of User:Rilak. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

In UNIX System V, the following is cited with a commented out link:

www.cbronline.com/news/unix_international_reviews_the_unix_system_v4_story_so_far

There's also an off-line book cited for the same fact, but verification is a bit more difficult that way. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Admin: I created a copy-paste-able list of these over at User:Qwertyus/cbr-whitelist. I omitted the last link because it's already in the whitelist. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

smashinginterviews.com/interviews/musicians/gary-wright-interview-the-dream-weaver-gets-connected-tours-with-ringo-starr

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

This page will be very useful for Gary Wright, Footprint and "Dream Weaver". Specifically, the interview contains Wright's explanation on the message behind his biggest hit, "Dream Weaver"; and, while offering valuable insight into his friendship with George Harrison, he gives details about a song he and Harrison wrote in 1971, ‘To Discover Yourself’. I've not read Wright discussing "Dream Weaver" in these terms (even in mid 1970s articles available on Rock's Backpages). And although mention of their collaboration "To Discover Yourself" is made at sites such as vintage rock.com, I've not seen such background on that song's creation before. Wright's replies regarding his pioneering use of the portable keyboard (particularly mentions of Edgar Winter's “Frankenstein”, the Arp 2600 keyboard, and Minimoog and Oberheim synthesizers) would all be great to include. The same with mention of him starring in Fanny on Broadway in 1954, with a pre-Brady Bunch Florence Henderson – details that are currently unsourced in the Gary Wright article. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The owners of smashinginterviews were found to have engaged in some bad behavior (spamming) back in 2010. As late as 2012, this similar request was declined. However, it's four years since the last instance of bad behavior that I can see. Perhaps the site itself should still be blacklisted, to prevent a repeat of 2010's behavior... but when an established and prolific content creator finds useful information on a specific page that isn't accessible elsewhere (as seems to be the case here), I'd be inclined to whitelist that specific page. If the site owners decide to spam that link in multiple pages where it isn't useful, then perhaps it could be revoked, but that really doesn't seem likely with an interview as specific as this one. – Quadell ^(talk) 15:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

AVFM notable author 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

This was blacklisted in the past (discussion about this present on the AVFM article's talk) because some random IPs were spamming links to it. The official representatives of the site have clarified that they had no part in this and would ban such people from their site if they knew of them, but nonetheless the blacklisting remains.

I would like to propose the selective whitelisting of notable authors (who have Wikipedia articles) who contribute articles there, so that these articles can be cited as sources on their individual articles, and possible elsewhere. I will link their names, their home author pages, and also the individual article pages I am hoping could be added to the whitelist.

Warren Farrell at avoiceformen.com/author/warren-farrell

avoiceformen.com/education/equity-without-equity-universities-love-hate-relationship-with-men/ published 25 September 2013

Erin Pizzey at avoiceformen.com/author/erin-pizzey

avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/from-avfm-editor-at-large-erin-pizzey/ published 1 January 2013
avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/mens-human-rights-supposed-hate-speech/ published 6 August 2013

Even if the other pages by other authors not notable enough for Wikipedia articles remain blacklisted, I don't see why these ones should be. If we look into the circumstances surrounding the original blacklisting, I would question the specific pages linked to and whether they were actually by any of these 4. If they were by others besides them, then I see no reason why these notable works should remain black if the site was blackened due to the linking of different contributors. These are all new articles and the spam vandalism predates their publication, so I am confident they were not the ones used by the ones who provoked the blacklisting.

Two other notables have also been interviewed in other articles on the site:

Miles Groth:

avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/conversation-with-dr-miles-groth-on-the-need-for-male-studies/ published 27 January 2014

Helen Smith (psychologist):

avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/dr-helen-smith-erin-pizzey-dean-esmay/

Personally I think rather than blacklisting the whole site, if particular pages have been spammed, it should be possible to blacklist JUST those pages, taken up as individual issues. Keeping in mind that people opposed to an article may spam it to get it blocked, as opposed to someone in support of it spamming it to get it noticed. It doesn't seem right to do the whole site considering that. If someone were spamming a link to unrelated NYT articles I doubt we'd block the NYT site or even those individual articles, and instead take it up with the spammer. Ranze (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to add a link to the author representative page on avoiceformen.com (we do not link all web presences for a subject, see WP:ELOFFICIAL). If there is need for using the other documents as a reference, that should be explained why this reference is needed for which article. Just listing/linking the article because the subject wrote it is also not a reason to add it to a page is also against our core policies and guidelines. Moreover, we are not going to whitelist without good reason why it needs to be used, it really needs to add value.

It is likely often futile (this may be one of the few examples where it may be a case) to blacklist just the one page that was spammed (we do that for specific links on YouTube sometimes). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

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

I'm proposing the whitelisting solely for use in the article about Examiner.com to link to the site. I strongly support maintaining the site on the blacklist for most purposes, but it should be linked in the article about the topic. Whitelisting this wouldn't benefit a specific person. We normally link to a company website in articles about them and this shouldn't be different. Request specific link examiner.com to be whitelisted for the article Examiner.com Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined. We can't white-list the domain name. We need an actual path to an actual page on that site. Besides, the link to www.examiner.com is already available in the infobox of the Examiner.com article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is in the infobox and an annoying bot keeps tagging the article for using it. How about examiner.com/about Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One answer is all we get? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Seriously? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:25, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

6 weeks? Niteshift36 (talk) 13:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.examiner.com/about doesn't exist. Do you mean www.examiner.com/About_Examiner ? If so, I'd support whitelisting that. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It has apparently changed since I proposed it. Yes, that link would work just fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Nowpublic.com

nowpublic.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'm proposing the whitelisting solely for use in the article about nowpublic.com to link to the site. I strongly support maintaining the site on the blacklist for most purposes, but it should be linked in the article about the topic. Whitelisting this wouldn't benefit a specific person. We normally link to a company website in articles about them and this shouldn't be different. Requesting that the specific link nowpublic.com be whitelisted for the article NowPublic. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined for the same reason as your request above is declined. Furthermore, for technical reasons, the whitelist and blacklist can't restrict a link so it can be used only in one article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See above. Now the url nowpublic.com redirects to the examiner one. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

One answer is all we get? Niteshift36 (talk) 15:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

??? Niteshift36 (talk) 19:26, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Still waiting. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:57, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes indeed, nowpublic.com redirects to examiner.com. Precisely which page within nowpublic.com do you want whitelisted? -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wondershare Software

wondershare.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 creating an article on Wondershare Software that can be viewed in my user space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CNMall41/Wondershare_Software). When putting the website address in the information box, I was notified that the domain was on the blacklist. The purpose of placing the domain in the information box was to be in conformity with similar articles and also for readers to have a link to the actual site. I made the request to remove the domain at the global blacklist and was advised that I should come here and see if it was possible to whitelist the homepage of the website just for the information box. The request that I made was here. It appears that the domain was originally blacklisted along with numerous others during an investigation of someone using multiple accounts to spam links. I am not sure if this was on English Wikipedia or others or both. Just seeing if the homepage or the about page of the website can be whitelisted for the purpose of including it in the article. Please let me know what additional information is needed, if any, to complete this request. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide the address of the about page, is it wondershare.com/about? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Great question. I looked at the site closer and cannot find one. It looks like there is the homepage and then product pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

bimeanalytics.com

bimeanalytics.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 there, I wonder if this link can be added to the whitelist ? Apparently it had "repeat attempts to spam Wikipedia" some time back. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia today now that I see that this company has numerous recognition appearances in the press ("BIME Analytics nabs 4m to simplify business intelligence". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2013-11-21., "French Cloud Computing firm picks KC". Business Journal. Retrieved 2013-10-30.). Thanks --User:Nephelai13 ^{T C} 15:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

pickeringchatto.com

pickeringchatto.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
Pickering & Chatto Publishers

This is the website of a reputable academic publisher whose notability has recently been re-established on its Wikipedia stub. The stub would benefit from the inclusion of this url in the company information box - because the url will provide an easy way of definitively verifying key information about the company, such as the location of its headquarters in Bloomsbury, London and the publication types it specialises in. Drguybh (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This site is part of the long-term abuse by Agora Publishing (who got most of their sites blacklisted, but are still active on Wikipedia promoting their business; see www.agora-inc.com/a-message-from-the-president and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Nov 1#Agora Publishing spam on Wikipedia - 2). I would therefore strongly suggest to whitelist an about-page only. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that this article was AfCd by an account with only 5 edits, similar MO as some accounts in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Nov 1#Agora Publishing spam on Wikipedia - 2. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It is true that this site has been abused in the past but this does not alter the fact that the subject is notable and that the article would be improved by the addition of the url for the reasons given above. The suggestion to whitelist only the 'contact' page seems to be the most reasonable compromise, taking account of both these facts. Drguybh (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note: like user:Tomboulton5, and the IP users User:31.54.172.142 and user:81.152.128.193, also user:Drguybh is only editing on the subject Pickering & Chatto Publishers, having created User:Drguybh/Pickering & Chatto Publishers with exactly the same text as the current article in mainspace (internal copyvio?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time understanding the suspicion surrounding this topic. There are explanations for all the facts pointed out above. I am only editing the page mentioned because, as is evident from the content of my few edits, it is a subject I know about. Everyone has to start somewhere and there is a limited amount of time I can devote to editing Wikipedia. I have deleted the draft version of the page in my user space in case it violates policies. For the record, I am not an employee of any publishing company. If I were, is it likely that I would be devoting my Sunday to spamming Wikipedia on their behalf? In any case the above points are distinctly ad hominem. The subject is still demonstrably notable and the article would still be improved by inclusion of a link to the publisher's contact page. No one above has suggested otherwise or provided an argument against whitelisting a restricted portion (at least) of the publisher's url. Drguybh (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I am only having concerns, Drguybh. The company, Agora Inc., which is related to Pickering & Chatto, has shown in the past a very aggressive form of spamming on Wikipedia, and seen related cases earlier, they are known to be still actively spamming Wikipedia, using accounts which are only used to edit one specific subject. That makes me concerned with any 'Single-Purpose' accounts related to their subjects, hence my notes.

Also I have not objected against whitelisting, see my suggestion above. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for clarifying, user:Beetstra. I understand your concerns and agree with the above suggestion. Drguybh (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

army-technology.com

army-technology.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 site provides excellent information on various projects related to military news, equipment and details from an organised and valid source but seems to have been blacklisted for an unknown reason. In this specific case, the Modern equipment of the British Army page will be greatly benefitted by it as it contains much pertinent information for said equipment and news of its acquirement.

The specific links are the following:

army-technology.com/projects/watchkeeper/

army-technology.com/projects/springer-all-terrain/

army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/

army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/fnherstal/press32.html

army-technology.com/projects/future/

support whitelisting. Blacklisting a huge number of links on a very large number of articles is completely unacceptable without discussion. Dormskirk (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some more useful links:

www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/
www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/feature1616-5.html

Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

mining-technology.com

mining-technology.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
Many, many article in the subcategories of in Category:Mines (some individual examples below)
Lots of articles on my watchilst just came up as showing blacklisted links (which I probably personally added). Mining-technology provides a wealth of information about various mining properties around the world. While there are links directing people to various mining suppliers available on the website (under the companies and products and services sections), the links that are used as references in articles about individual mines. The articles on the website provide information about the history and production rates/processes of many individual mines, and is used in, for example Batu Hijau mine, Kupol Gold Mine‎, and Kiruna Mine‎ (there are many others). I understand that many -technology domains are primarily spam/advertising websites, this one is pretty benign, and does provide a lot of information about a rather niche industry. --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- As an asiede, if there is a way to change it to mining-technology.com/contractors (and subpages of that) it would be fine, as that section is made up mostly of press releases/corporate profiles (which would be better sourced from the individual company websites, if they were deemed notable enough for an article.) --kelapstick^(bainuu) 12:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support whitelisting. Dormskirk (talk) 20:25, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/

*offshore-technology.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 link is being used in two article Corrib gas project and Geography of Ireland to provide details about the gas finds off the Irish coast. I cannot see a problem with the informational aspects of this website though there are numerous links in other existing articles about different gas and oil fields and related articles to this domain.

I can't find any discussion about blacklisting this domain but see that they offer some procurement services for contractors. That may be an issue, but they contain extensive quantities of useful data about offshore oil and gas that does not appear to be available elsewhere. Perhaps whitelisting the informational areas and blacklisting the promotional areas would be a solution if possible.

~~Personally I am only interested in the mention link but others may be more interested in keeping the other link. Some indication why this was blacklisted would also be good.~~ ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I changed the refs on Corrib to another reference - I believe as you definitely have a better understanding of the subject may see if they are valid. I was spammed by the CBROnline people, owner of the -technology domains; they have been spamming wiki left and right.

To make things worse, I saw that hydrocarbons-technology.com is linked too... must be from the same spammer family. Legionarius (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've replaced the rest of these links, so there is now no need to white list. ww2censor (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

There are more than 130 articles using offshore-technology.com for references. Changing them one-by-one is not a solution, so the site should be de-blacklisted. All this blacklisting had created more harm than this spammer ever has done. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
support whitelisting. Dormskirk (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.railway-technology.com

railway-technology.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 url is used appropriately in a number of articles on railways; on the three that are on my watchlist I ask that the following urls be whitelisted:

www.railway-technology.com/projects/-hitachi-super-express-trains-uk/ used on Intercity Express Programme, adds to the information in the other reference
www.railway-technology.com/projects/tyne/ used on British electric multiple units to give background information in the Tyne and Wear Metro
www.railway-technology.com/projects/perpignan/ used on LGV Perpignan–Figueres to give background information on that project.

There were two others, but I updated those with new information. Edgepedia (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support. Appropriately used.Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

This subject is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Blacklisted website. This looks like a legitimate website to me with useful information. Many articles use it as a reference. I have added links to this before and I'm not a spammer. G-13114 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support - this is a legitimate source which seems to have been blacklisted in error. Please whitelist as an authentic website. --Jza84 | Talk 19:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whitelisting as this seems a legitimate site -→Davey2010→→Talk to me!→ 23:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whitelisting, would appear to have been blacklisted in error, it is a legitimate website Mo7838 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Further legitimate content linked from Stadler_GTW, in the form of www.railway-technology.com/projects/stadler-gtw-articulated-railcars. The text of the R-T page provides detailed information on the GTW family that is not readily available elsewhere. The content is not spammy and, per copyscape, has not been scraped from elsewhere. I'm not familiar with the content of every -technology.com site operated by Kable, but railway-technology was a legitimate site when it opened and it still is. Even if other -technology.com sites are spam-like there is no good reason to forbid R-T. TheOtherEvilTwin (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

- This has nothing to do with the content of the site - this has to do with the owners of the site (Kable/CBROnline) actively spamming Wikipedia with these links. That behaviour is in direct conflict with our core policies and guidelines and with the recently discussed suggested change to the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. That is enough reason to do something against them spamming. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Whitelist please) Is there actually any evidence of spamming on this specific domain? I've added references from railway-technology.com on several occasions, and have many railway related wiki-pages on my watch list. I don't recall any occasion on which a link was added to a wikipage from railway-technology.com on a rail related webpage that was not appropriate ie a specific needed inline reference. Most if not all of the warnings I have seen about this site on pages on my watchlist have been about links added by me. It goes without saying that I am not a spammer.83.100.174.82 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (or Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]

Comment I think the trains wikiproject members would be more than happy to keep an eye on and report/deal with any spamming from this or any other source (as already happens in my opinion).Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.naval-technology.com

naval-technology.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 url is used appropriately in a number of articles on naval matters. Not sure why it was blacklisted. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
- Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.roadtraffic-technology.com

roadtraffic-technology.net: 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 url is used appropriately in a number of articles on road transport matters. Not sure why it was blacklisted. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.water-technology.net

water-technology.net: 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 url is used appropriately in a number of articles on water resevoir matters. Not sure why it was blacklisted. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If this is temporarily de-blacklisted, then why do I see "The following link has triggered a protection filter: water-technology.net" whenI try to save a link to this site? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Beetstra: sorry, you missed this one. notice it's the last line in this diff. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am sorry, I missed 2 from the set, now commented out as well. My apologies. Now truly

On hold. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 05:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.power-technology.net

power-technology.net: 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 url provides several unique articles as references for Wiki-pages on electrical power. I see no wiki-offensive content on those urls. The url is owned by Kable, not sure if that is related to CBROnline. TGCP (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Bummer, Kable is the "new" CBR, and editors are not named. Whether content is sourced from the wrong places is beyond me, so I guess discussion should continue. Sad to see refs with good content going away because Kable is shady. TGCP (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support that this site should be whitelisted. Dormskirk (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support. It should be whitelisted as well as www.power-technology.com. Beagel (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/

naval-technology.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

Following the recent blanket blacklisting of external links to naval-technology.com and related sites, I would like to request that their page on the Collins-class submarine be added to the whitelist. This would allow the page's use as a reference in the class article (where it is cited at nine points), and in the articles on the six submarines in the class (cited in each article twice). Based on my understanding of the class, I consider the information on this webpage to be reliable. In addition, some of the information in these articles is solely cited to the webpage; I am unable to find any online or dead-tree sources that also publicly publish the information and could be used to replace the source. -- saberwyn 11:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

support whitelisting. Dormskirk (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-10-biggest-ports/

ship-technology.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 Want to use on Port of Rotterdam as it lists very well the recent tonnage per port and includes a listing of these ports. Could not find any reputable substitute. The website looks reputable. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - temporarily delisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.railway-technology.com/features/feature122751

This link was tagged on the article 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami because the bot matched it to \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist~~, an obvious false positive~~. The site linked to is, indeed, all about rail technology; the specific article goes into much detail about how the rail system in Japan survived the earthquake and tsunami, and is a valuable addition to the article. I'm asking for this specific link to be whitelisted, but it might be a good idea to whitelist the domain as well, if that's feasible. railway-technology.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 - Gorthian (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

On hold - rules not active at the moment. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:09, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

energy-business-review.com links for Golar Spirit

www.energy-business-review.com/news/petrobras_begins_lng_delivery_to_brazilian_power_units_300109
www.energy-business-review.com/news/golar_spirit_lng_regasification_vessel_heads_to_petrobras_pecem_terminal

energy-business-review.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 Both these links have been long time used for the Golar Spirit article and provide necessary information for that article. They have been added by long-term editor (Beagel (talk · contribs)) for the purpose to verify information in that article and not for spamming. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Both aggregated from the originals ('Petrobras said' - 'Petrobras announced' - though the originals are not quoted). The latter contains information which is quite similar to an original report http://www.golarlng.com/index.php?name=seksjon/Stock_Exchange_Releases/Press_Releases.html&pressrelease=1243371.html. Haven't found the first one yet (Petrobras may not have the old news reports where this is obviously coming from), maybe that one could be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.energy-business-review.com/News/denmark_and_poland_considering_gas_pipeline

energy-business-review.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 link has been long time used for the Baltic Pipe article and provides necessary information for that article. It was added by long-term editor (Beagel (talk · contribs)) for the purpose to verify information in that article and not for spamming. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Replaceable with http://energinet.dk/EN/GAS/Nyheder/Sider/PGNiG-SA,-GAZ–SYSTEMSA-and-Energinet.dk-sign-cooperation-agreement-to-build-pipeline-from-Poland-to-Denmark.aspx - the original report where this aggregator got the info from in the first place (cite your sources?). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I think you posted it under the wrong section. And I think here is a small difference of primary and secondary sources. Getting information from the source is not the same as reprinting the press release. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The aggregator site has not more value than the original, and I would not believe the aggregator without finding where they got the information (which they did not cite). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Policy, please? And this is not relevant when blacklisting pages (you block them for being spammers not because they are aggregators), so it can't be also relevant for whitelisting. Beagel (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

WP:PRIMARY - primary sources can be fine. The secondary source you note does not cite where they sourced the information, is it really a WP:RS - it is only reliable because you can find the original source.

Yes, they were blacklisted because they were being spammed - that they are not a WP:RS (I should find the discussions on the noticeboard for these sites) does not help, and that they are replaceable by more reliable sources did not help their cause, and still does not help their cause. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

But in this case it is not WP:PRIMARY. And sources are not automatically reliable or unreliable - this depends of the context. That is the core of WP:RS. It sounds as bias against certain publishers/certain websites. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The news report from the company itself is the primary source - I would call that a reliable source (a company would not intentionally publish wrong statements about themselves). Per WP:PRIMARY, there is nothing against using primary sources (with the due care of primary sources - but 'Petrobras announced' is typical something that is allowed). The -business-review.com and -technology.com-sites basically rewrite (sometimes minimally) the primary source. They are a secondary source, but they do not link to the original source (as a note: they can not copy-paste the company info, and they don't, that would be copyright infringement, so they have to rewrite). So, how do we know that that is a reliable source - by looking at the primary source, which we know is reliable, and comparing. That needs to be done for every case that you use that secondary source, because most (if not all) of the articles do a) just rewrite those primary sources, and b) do not cite that source. Therefore, in every case that I have seen, the secondary source is not reliable until you checked the primary source. So why not cite the primary source, which you know is reliable, and this is information where it is not wrong to cite the primary source (I think I would compare it to my child saying to me 'but mommy said it was fine to eat the whole chocolate bar before dinner!' .. I would check the primary source anyway).

Another secondary source, that actually sits in Trinidad and reports that they saw the ship in the harbour filling up with LNG (in one of these sections) would be a better, and independent, source for the fact that the boat took its first load in Trinidad (as announced by the company - a reliable, but still primary, source) or the rewritten report by one of these sites (only reliable if you know the primary source, and certainly not an independent determination of the facts). I note that such sources are not used (they exist, someone could see the harbour logs and check whether the ship was there, and cite that - and that is independently verifiable).

So the determination needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, sure - but the four links you now requested for whitelisting are all the same type of re-reports (and I still have to see links where they are really independent determinations of the facts, as the Reuters you mentioned elsewhere would generally do - I think Reuters would call their people in Trinidad and ask if the ship came by - by the way, the ship went through Trinidad, not through Trinidad [á]nd Tobago ..), and three of them show that (the likely) originals are easily found (and probably also the other ones have originals somewhere to be found - maybe not online, but WP:V does not require sources to be available online anyway).

Now, this is what these sites do, they go through the sites in their subject area and every time they produce a news-item, they re-publish that. Often they do nothing else than just that, it is their bread and butter. That is very handy (I use those sites professionally, I don't have to go through all the independent sites, and if I find it interesting, I go look at the original announcement). Now, an additional question to be asked (and I have reverted spammed reference-sections like that) is whether it is notable that a company had a ship moved from Singapore through Trinidad if only the company reports it in its news-section, and a site that just copies such news-sections and re-publishes them. It is true, verifiable, reliable, but not always notable. The existence of this secondary source does not make the fact notable (but it may be encyclopedic).

If the majority of the site is like that (exhaustively shown, I did follow a couple of links and see similar reports and no independent reports), and it is massively spammed (this is a campaign active for what, 6-7 years now, multiple accounts, and the first wave of CBROnline spam did get user accounts blocked, that did not exactly stop them, did it? So did blocking the accounts solve the problem?) then such a site is certainly a candidate for blacklisting, even if it is (still) extensively used. That may put a load on quite some editors (a large number of editors, actually, and not only on the few that try to mitigate the problem of spam), but, I am sorry to say, most of these cases that were linked seem to me to be cases where I would have thought before using the source: 'Oh, did mommy say that, let me ask.' (just to note, in this case (Baltic Pipe) mommy was asked: the news-aggregator is cited next to the original source (darn, and I do all the work to find the original, that was already done). There is no loss in info if the 'b-source' (which is simply a duplicate, a rewrite, of the 'a-source' in all three instances where it is used) is removed. It has no extra value, the 'b-source' does not make the statement any more robust. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We should be avoiding aggregation sites that rewrite news to avoid copyright issues, and otherwise summarise and change the effect of the news report. That a site is a regurgitated copy lessens its value. Far better to quote the original article. These domains remain a source of abuse, and having to unnecessarily whitelist when there is a better source available doesn't add up to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.energy-business-review.com/news/eesti_energia_outotec_to_form_oil_shale_processing_jv_171208

energy-business-review.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 link had been until quite recently long time used for the Galoter process article and provided necessary information for that article. It was added by long-term editor (Beagel (talk · contribs)) for the purpose to verify information in that article and not for spamming. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The originals. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Although www.energy-business-review.com has used these press releases as sources, it is not a reprint of the press releases and therefore accounts as a secondary source. It is a same as Reuters or AP create news based on the company press release but not reprinting it. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree that in this case they have used a large blocks from the press releases. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

That is the bread and butter of these sites, that is how they operate. It is basically true for every single article (they may have different parts, but my initial scan of a couple of the use of these sites did not show sections where they do independent reporting; I have to admit that I did not a full analysis of all info on their site, but only the handful of links I checked). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As above, I support Beetstra's decision to not whitelist the domain. We can do better, and it is not the same as Reuters or AP, they have reputation and accreditation. This lot have nothing. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.cbronline.com

cbronline.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

Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

Explain why the site should be whitelisted - The bot is simply making a mistake and incorrectly matching cbronline.com

Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link - The article Richard Prout, which is a bio of the living entrepreneur but has nothing whatsoever to do with the bcbonline match.

Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added - www.cbronline.com/news/intracus_bundles_staff_browser_with_netscape_product.

Thank you for your help. Very new to this, so please excuse. What happens next?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.212.63 (talk • contribs)

There is no mistake, cbronline.com is the targetted link. As this is from the news section of cbronline, I expect that it can be replaced with the primary report. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.jerseyusa.net

jerseyusa.net: 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 site is triggered by the NBA jerseys spam filter. If one visits the website is is clearly not spam, it is the Jersey County Historical Society. URL is present on Jerseyville, Illinois. Elassint ^Hi 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

moneyweek.com/john-studzinski-banker-philanthropist-and-anglophile/

moneyweek.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

Good biographical article on John J. Studzinski. I'd like to use it to flesh out the current Wikipedia article. Also, it gives some quotes from a 2002 article in The Times, which is unavailable for public view except at institutions which subscribe to The Times digital archive. Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you need it only for quotes in The Times, then you should cite The Times directly, regardless of whether it is available to non-subscribers. That is better than indirectly referencing it like you are suggesting. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

legoideas.uservoice.com

uservoice.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

uservoice.com seems to be blacklisted, but I need to cite legoideas.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/356073 as a reference on Lego Ideas saying that the later Minecraft sets are not Lego Ideas products. --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-june-26-28-2014/

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

Announcement for a conference coming up in the next month with the potential for news coverage and may be cited on a number of articles of people that are appearing: Warren Farrell, Erin Pizzey, Miles Groth, Barbara Kay, Karen Straughan, Anne Cools, Paul Nathanson, Stefan Molyneux, and perhaps more. --Netoholic @ 07:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.andrewcripps.com.au/images/Speeches/Andrew%20Cripps%20spk%20Hinchinbrook%202008_02_12_102.pdf

www.andrewcripps.com.au: 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 content relevant to the history of the Shire of Cardwell. It is on what I assume to be the official website of Andrew Cripps, the local parliamentarian for the district, which doesn't appear to have anything out of the ordinary, so I am unsure why it would be blacklisted as a site. Thanks 03:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

www.kavkazcenter.com

kavkazcenter.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

Relevant source for articles relating to the insurgency in the North Caucasus. The site's own article displays a prominent blacklist warning. 3hunna (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We will not whitelist the main domain as such, we need a full page, e.g. an index.htm, index.php or about.htm. Please see /Common requests for more info. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.bollyguide.com

bollyguide.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

Relevant source for articles relating to the Heropanti box office collection and many more bollywood movies box office collections, reviews & news.

You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.museum.moedling.at.tf

Why? It is a website of a museum for an Austrian city named and in Mödling and refers just to its history. Which articles? At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6dling

specific link: www.museum.moedling.at.tf
museum.moedling.at.tf: 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

Further you can see that the home page of this city refers to its history museum also to the above website: www.moedling.at/system/web/gelbeseite.aspx?typ=8&bezirkonr=0&detailonr=221166536&menuonr=221031552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esilence (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

the website is the homepage of the museum of that city. please someone check and put to whitelist. Esilence (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If you're asking why the site was blacklisted, then the answer to this should be searchable. You can search for it as well as anybody else can.

You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

at.tf is a redirect domain, and blacklisted on meta. Generally, redirect sites are not to be used per this part of the external links guideline. You are looking for http://home.tele2.at/museum/, the non-redirected site.

Declined --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thank you Dirk, that helps me alot! how did you find out that it was redirect? So I will change the link on wiki article to that what you posted. cheers Esilence (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The .at.tf tld was blacklisted on meta for practically being a redirect site - many of the pages on that site are like the pages on .tk, they only contain a boilerplate page which loads the data from somewhere else on the web (they generally contain a <frame source=real-url>-code. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 13:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Approved requests

www.beacon.org

beacon.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

This is a book publisher homepage (a known publisher, imprint of Random House), useful for publication information. Mozucat (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've added an exception; this is the page being used as a citation by the class project improving Kindred (novel). I think it might take a bit for the exception to take effect.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.examiner.com/Terms_of_Use.html

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

For use in the Examiner.com article in order to include a reference citing the examiner.com's Terms of Use. Mojoworker (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

How many weeks does it take for these whitelisting requests to be resolved? Do we need more admins? Mojoworker (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, it's been over a month now. I've lost the edit I was trying to make. FFS, the bureaucracy here is mind–numbing at times. Time to resurrect WP:WikiProject Administrator? Mojoworker (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Done -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Denied requests

www.examiner.com/review/clinton-heylin-pores-through-springsteen-discog-e-street-shuffle

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 whitelist this review of Clinton Heylin's book on Bruce Springsteen, to add as a cite to the Heylin article. I believe Peter Roche is a widely published journalist and reviewer, so his review of Heylin's book is not spam. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Is there any reason we can't find reviews from reliable sources that aren't blacklisted? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Not all reviews are of equal merit. Roche's review is knowledgeable and has informed discussions about Springsteen's recording history. Why is it not valid as comment on Heylin's book? Mick gold (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key is in the 'reviews from reliable sources' - examiner.com reviews do not have editorial overview, and hence not necessarily reliable. If there are sources from reliable sources, those other ones are preferable. And this type of information simply looks like information that is available from other, reliable sources. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 12:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Says who? Int21h (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What part? Examiner itself clearly tells that they do not review what is published there, and Google shows many reviews of the book besides examiner.com. People just publish their reviews on examiner.com for one reason - to earn money with it. If that same information is available elsewhere (on sites that do not have this problem of earning money for the writer, or are of equal or even better general reliability), then those other sources are preferable. Is the specific information from the review on examiner.com so unique that it can not be sourced elsewhere? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined - Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

examiner.com/article/shatner-is-a-ladykiller-director-william-gref-on-impulse-1974

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 just want to use it for Impulse (1974 film). --George Ho (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined No reason given to suggest that this is more credible than the average stuff from examiner.com. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.examiner.com/article/singer-barbara-mauritz-of-lamb-group-that-helped-close-fillmore-west-has-died?cid=rss

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

Need a 1 page unlist for this: www.examiner.com/article/singer-barbara-mauritz-of-lamb-group-that-helped-close-fillmore-west-has-died?cid=rss

I had to put an extra . in that to get it to save...should be examiner all 1 word.

We need that link because it is the only confirmation of the death of Barbara Mauritz so far. It is for the Deaths in 2014 page.

Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason; there's no suggestion in the request that the reason doesn't apply here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.examiner.com/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review

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/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review is a link I wish to include in "The Hawking Excitation". It has a review of the episode, and I think it is well-written and reliable (as good as the reviews I have include from IGN, The A.V. Club etc). Reviews are just opinions, and given all the other reviews mentioned I can't see it giving undue weight. I have drafted a paragraph containing what I would like to say here, containing another review as well. (The refs don't work because it's in my sandbox but you can get the gist.) Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Just a question, do you think that the examiner.com review says the same because of independent and reliable research, or because the other reviews that you mention say the same (and hence, the examiner.com review is a regurgitation of that)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 10:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not quite sure I understand the question but I'll have a go at answering it. The examiner review contains positive feedback, similar to most of the other reviews, and also compliments Stephen Hawking's appearance in the episode. No other review mentions the limited screen time of Hawking (which I think is an important point) or the fact that he is a scientist (contrasting with many other guest stars on the show), so I think it would be unfair to call it a "regurgitation" of any other review. Bilorv (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The author of that review is a college student, not a professional reviewer, according to his bio. I am not understanding why it is necessary for a review to point out that Stephen Hawking had screen time (of course he did, every other review mentions that he appeared on the show, so obviously he had screen time) or that he is a scientist (obviously he's a scientist, he is one of the best-known modern scientists of our age, instantly recognizable, and an author of popular books for laypeople). Are you saying that you want to cite this Examiner review for stating what is already obvious? I can tell from the other reviews, without even seeing the show, that Stephen Hawking had screen time in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The key word was limited: Hawking had limited screen time. Yes, of course he appeared in the episode but only in the final scene, very briefly (as opposed to say, James Earl Jones, who had much more screen time in "The Convention Conundrum"). Without a review stressing that Hawking only appeared for a short period of time, the article might imply that Hawking had a much bigger acting part in the episode. As for the scientist bit, well, the point is that the show was complimented for having a scientist on the show, as the show is about science. No other review explicitly mentions that it is great that they managed to get a high-profile scientist on the show. Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The real point here, is that anybody can write a review on examiner.com, and it isn't any different from writing the same review on a personal blog. In this case we have a college kid using examiner.com as a means to generate a bit of extra income. If he compliments a show or makes any other personal observation, then it is no different than citing some random blogger who happens to review TV shows, of which there are many. And, blogs are generally not acceptable as references. Due to examiner.com's lack of editorial oversight, it is functionally no different than a blog, and therefore generally not acceptable for citing in accordance with WP:RS.

Also we don't need sources for self-evident facts that are obvious by inspection. For example, we could say without citation that the Mona Lisa has her arms crossed, because that fact is obvious from looking at the painting. Similarly, the article can say without citation that Hawking appeared only in the final scene, because it is obvious from looking at the episode. This solves the problem of the possible implication that Hawking had a bigger role.

I am not seeing a reason to white-list yet another examiner.com link for the purpose of citing facts that are obvious, or for citing the views and observations of a non-notable reviewer. On that basis, this request is

Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thewebminer.com

The website should be whitelisted because contains free data analysis tools in "tools" section that are relevant for articles like Data analysis, Data clustering, Data scraping and other articles related to statistics. Also it's a relevant source of data for statistics. There are some free data sets in "Download" section.

Link to add:

thewebminer.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

Ady1689 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We're not going to whitelist the whole site; that is the same as removing it from the blacklist, (which as you know as the petitioner, was already declined). Notice that most (if not all) approve requests here state which specific link is to be whitelisted and for what purpose. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

thewebminer.com/tools: 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 You can whitelist url thewebminer.com/tools ? --78.97.94.140 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, but you can stop wasting your time on these noticeboards. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If the /tools path is common to all the links that got the site blacklisted in the first place, then I agree, the answer is no.

You need to propose a specific link for use in a specific article, and explain why having that link adds value to the article. So far, you have not done this. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

dubaimetro.eu

dubaimetro.eu: 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 website should be whitelisted because it is the official website of Dubai Metro, and I will be using it to cite some references in Dubai Metro articles. Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

We don't white-list entire websites here. If you want to de-list the site from the blacklist, the place to request it is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Also using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as a reference is not desirable in articles. If you have a specific page on that site to propose as a reference, we can consider it, but not the whole site. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

losthorizons.com

The website is full of useful information about the U.S. Income Tax. The URL I specify below contains the cover page and page 98 of the court transcript referred to in the last paragraph of the article on Victoria_A._Roberts. The full document is not yet available on the Internet.

Articles that would benefit from the removal of losthorizons.com from the blacklist include every article on the application of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Internal Revenue Code.

Articles that would benefit from the addition of the link below include Victoria A. Roberts, Subornation of perjury, Title 18 of the United States Code, and Nancy Garlock Edmunds. There are likely many others where the contention between judge's orders and standing law is discussed.

The specific link to the page I'm requesting be added is losthorizons.com/Newsletter/CriminalAssault/DoreenJuryInstructions.pdf

losthorizons.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 Dscotese (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Lost Horizons seems like a highly unreliable source pushing a incoherent conspiracy theory about the US tax code. It seems best that it stay blacklisted.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

www.scriptureearth.org/00i-Scripture_Index.php?sortby=lang&name=emp&ROD_Code=00000#

scriptureearth.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

I'm working on the page for the Emberá people, in which I mention the bible translation into the Emberá language. In addition to citing the publication directly, I use this website as a gateway to sources of information about it, including sample readings.--Sublimesam (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Unlikely Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emberá People was the article you were working on (I fixed the syntax so the link would work). I see it went live at Emberá people on 13 December 2013. Congratulations! But sorry, Wikipedia is not intended to be a means of sending visitors to your "gateway to sources of information about it". I believe your request will be denied. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I might be able to go for this actually. Would need explanation on how it is outside WP:ELNO item 1 though. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'll review this one further. scriptureearth.org was globally blacklisted at 02:31, 29 October 2009, per a Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/scriptureearth.org report last updated on that date. It's easy to see the issue. An editor was deemed to be spamming many category:languages articles with links to a site which had Bible translations into all of the linked languages, e.g., see this diff, which was reverted four days later. Then in February 2010, this information was added by the same editor, just without an external link this time. That was allowed to stand, as today Mazatecan languages has a section #Media that still mentions that the New Testament is available on that website, but without the link to it. Meanwhile there is also a link to a Bible translation on Jehovah's Witnesses' site, albeit a dead-but-likely fixable-link, leading one to ask why if links to the Scripture Earth website owned by Wycliffe Canada are not acceptable, links to the JW site are. A look at the http://www.jw.org/en/publications/ drop-down menu shows that there is the potential for "spamming" a lot of our languages articles with links to Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible. And of course we would not want to be seen discriminating against other religions, so if we let one holy book translation onto languages articles then we probably should allow them all. I'm not sure I see the case for selective whitelisting here; I doubt that the Bible is the only book ever published in this language. I think either we allow this practice globally, or we don't allow it at all. We have an entire area of the encyclopedia that covers this – see List of Bible translations by language. Note that that article has just one external link:
- WorldBibles.org lists over 14,000 internet links to Bibles, New Testaments and portions in over four thousand languages.

I just don't see it, but "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" is a little unclear to me too. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

google.com/cse/ and all pages whose url begins with it

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 was pointed here after making what was apparently a misplaced request for removal from the blacklist. It seems all links to Custom Search Engines on Google were blacklisted for some reason. However, I have created two of these that I hope to turn into tools here/on Tool Labs/wherever. I can't do that, though, until the following 2 URLs are whitelisted: www.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=003285824986883509686:2wwqv9fcnrk and www.google.com:443/cse/publicurl?cx=003285824986883509686:_shqdwlwdxk

Yes, they were blacklisted for a good reason: they were abused, and they have a high potential for being abused. You should be able to use them on Tool Labs without problem, if you want to use them here the specific links need to be whitelisted. Would you mind disclosing what the tools are for (for the record of the whitelisting)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

www.gayot.com/restaurants/wing-lei-las-vegas-nv-89109_4lv050901-09.html

gayot.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

Following previous gayot links (1, 2, 3, etc.), I seek to use it in Richard Chen which has information duplicated nowhere else. These discussions ok whitelisting gayot.com links. Richardc020 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

What makes that a definitive source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Just b/c it is not listed elsewhere means that it should be used, it needs to be a reliable source. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or stale requests

www.churchesattheleighsandlittlewaltham.co.nr

co.nr: 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
churchesattheleighsandlittlewaltham.co.nr: 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 link is to the Wordpress website/blog of a group of three churches in Essex, UK as referenced from, for example,Great Leighs. The "free" domain of .co.nr is used simply to reduce costs. We request that the link is whitelisted on this specific Great Leighs page.

Why not use the wordpress: http://patwatkinson1.wordpress.com/ ? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is the fallback position no doubt if the preferred and formal address for this website is deemed unacceptable due to its use of the .co.nr domain. This formal address has been in use for some years without any problem or comment. It would be useful if someone could explain why this domain is blacklisted. Thanks for your assistance and advice. --Trevor Wright — Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The .co.nr tld is blacklisted because it basically is a redirect-tld (as you see with this site, practically everything is not hosted on this tld but elsewhere, like .co.cc and (to a large extend) .tk - this tld does not differ from what tinyurl does). In principle, we do not use redirect sites, per WP:ELNEVER - they allow linking to sites that are blacklisted, they can be used in an instable way (fine today, tomorrow changed into a phishing site), and one does not necessarily know what happens inbetween (redirecting through another redirect) etc. That is why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted, and we are generally very weary in allowing them - there is generally no reason to use them, use the end address instead. That is what I advise here as well (even though in this case the address is stable and the redirect transparent). --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK, happy to take your advice - Great Leighs page updated. Thanks for your help Dirk. --TrevorWright (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

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

Troubleshooting and problems

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

companydirectorcheck

companydirectorcheck.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

Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Blacklisted_Links_Found_on_Banc_De_Binary details a bot finding links on the blacklist on the corresponding page. There doesn't seem to be any log entry pertaining to that blacklist entry, so it's hard to know if this is a false positive, if the use of the site on Banc de Binary is appropriate, or if those links should actually be removed. What should I do next? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam#companieslist.co.uk_and_others and MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/log/2014#May_2014 where it was grouped with similar domains which where blacklisted at the same time for the same issues. Werieth (talk) 22:09, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Since it was used on that page for other reasons, how can I sort this out? Pinkbeast (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The normal process is simply to find a better source. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

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

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]
Per d:Wikidata:Notability, MediaWiki pages are not supported in Wikidata. – Wbm1058 (talk) 15:04, 7 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 258: / Line 258: @@
 ::::::*6 weeks? [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:56, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
 :::*www.examiner.com/about doesn't exist. Do you mean www.examiner.com/About_Examiner ? If so, I'd support whitelisting that. -- [[User:Hoary|Hoary]] ([[User talk:Hoary|talk]]) 07:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)
+:::::*It has apparently changed since I proposed it. Yes, that link would work just fine. [[User:Niteshift36|Niteshift36]] ([[User talk:Niteshift36|talk]]) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)
 ===Nowpublic.com===

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