MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Herbythyme (talk | contribs) at 15:12, 29 November 2007 (→‎african-american-playwrights.suite101.com: done & link). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Spam whitelist Archives (current)→
 
Related pages:
Blacklist (Talk)
Blacklist Archive
Blacklist Log

Shortcuts:
WP:WHITELIST
The associated page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki m:SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (sites to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to block), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation.

Please enter your requests at the bottom of the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

Also in your request, please include the following

  1. The link that you want whitelisted in section title, like === example.com ===
  2. The page that you want to use the link on.
  3. Explain why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged.

snippet for logging: {{/request|174607976#section_name}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


www.aceshowbiz.com

I need to add www.aceshowbiz.com as a reference but it's blocked. Anthonyd3ca 07:24, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • To which article? And for what content? Guy (Help!) 21:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I would like for aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography_2.html to be whitelisted for the article Jonas Brothers. My request to remove this domain from the Meta-Wiki blacklist was denied (see http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist#aceshowbiz.com http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2007/10#aceshowbiz.com - moved to archive), and they recommended whitelisting the URLs here. Aceshowbiz.com has information I have referenced that I cannot find published elsewhere. It is currently used as a reference eight times in Jonas Brothers, as current reference number 23 ("Jonas Brothers Biography at AceShowBiz.com"). --Scott Alter 04:12, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm. Information not available elsewhere sounds like it might not be that reliable, to me. Guy (Help!) 15:47, 4 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again at Jonas Brothers and aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/jonas_brothers/biography.html, I see that all of the information at aceshowbiz.com has been published elsewhere, so reliability should not be an issue. The reason I prefer aceshowbiz.com's article is that it presents a large amount of information that is concise and relevant to the Wikipedia article. Even though some portions of aceshowbiz.com contain inappropriate material for referencing, there are also articles with factual information. --Scott Alter 00:56, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.mysundial.ca

Request for whitelisting Used on sundial Equation of time Diptych Gnomon I examined the site in May as did User:Walter Siegmund see talk page. Carl himself is an IP Wikipedist. I have posted the following on several user talk pages with no response.

What on earth is the objection to Carl Sabanskis site- apart from pitiful use of HTML! It is by far the most authorative site available on the subject and is an essential link. If the problem lies with someones bot please get that sorted- but remove this destructive blacklisting it does no credit the reputation of Wikipedia.

Further a mirror site has been removed. Can we please have this site whitelisted, and the 'bots' returned to their kennels. ClemRutter 14:51, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I had considerable difficulty in understanding exactly where this request for white listing should be made. Attempts to place it at the bottom of the section, as requested, resulted on no posting (perhaps I was unlucky as my internet cafe had a very poor connection). Re-reading the instruction, *here*, was also logically possible and it looks wrong. I am sure that some one will move it to the correct spot.ClemRutter 14:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
this continues under http://www.mysundial.2see.de slightly different address for the same site, I know this act itself can lead to a 'spam' reputation but it is a valueable website. --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 14:57, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO this site had better remain blacklisted. The site is not that useful, and it is quite clear from the talk page and the massive cross-posting (with mirror pages) that the owner of the site merely wants to attract visitors. /SvNH 03:21, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Events have moved on- and Carls reaction to the breach of WP:CIVIL is not helpful. However, my solution is different- and for exactly the same reasons- Whitelist the url: for the en: site where it has not caused any trouble for 3 years. This can be considered a limited trial. But it is not true that it is not that useful- for anyone constructing dials and interested in the Mathematics rather than the artistry it is the first port of call. I have deleted many links on this page in the past that were not notable (this page attracts them!). Visit again talk page and read my analysis of the posting history. Pay particular attention to the Users who have been working long term on this page. Finally we need to separate the value of the content of the site from the frustrations of the author whose antics have annoyed many other wikis. WP:AGF with gritted teeth. Thank you all for your attention ClemRutter 23:40, 17 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An excellent idea maybe even double ring fence it - put it in nonwiki brackets. Then the researcher has to jump through another ring. Why the page is deemed as not important I do not know but hey I only build them on the odd occasion. As I have said many times the actions of the web author here in wikipedia does not best serve the cause of knowledge, but that should not be a reason for stopping it. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 12:12, 18 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to take a look at what is going on in Diptych (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views). Imho Wikipedia should provide content, not links. Omitting one single external link cannot be a major loss, circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse. But this is, perhaps, a Scandinavian point of view. /SvNH 09:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for the pointer, yes I agree the actions do undermine the usefulness of the site. The site gave the mathematical content of the article. agreed circumventing the external links and spam policies may be worse would be worse, but the link did provide information and knowledge. I think now though the website is too intrinsically linked to spam. Ho Hum sad but I suppose we could look at adding the maths into the article. At the moment I cannot see where to go with this. Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 19:16, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is extremely frustrating that there is still no resolution to this. It is even easier to see Carl's point of view where the random intervention of someone who had no significant role in the developement of the page- blacklists a significant resource- and all the 'official' routes to remedy are broken. ClemRutter 09:39, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've followed this from a distance over many months. From the perspective of a non-admin volunteer who clears a lot of spam in connection with WikiProject Spam, here are my comments:
  • The domain owner has worked very, very hard to get his site blacklisted on meta.
  • The domain owner has been informed many times not to link to his own site. He's been referred numerous times to WP:EL, WP:COI and WP:SPAM. This has seemed only to harden his determination and persistence.
  • The site seems to be run more as a passion than as a commercial operation. That doesn't change the fact that these links have been spammed, but it is worth noting.
  • The domain owner can be considered uncontrollable and not amenable to any Wikipedia consensus
  • Multiple established editors on en.wikipedia have fought for these links, not because they like the owner's behaviour but because they value the site's content.
  • Nobody on any other Wikipedia appears to want these links at all and they are mad to have had them spammed
My suggestion is to whitelist this domain on en.wikipedia on a trial basis and watch it like a hawk. We'd be whitelisting it not becuase we approve of the site owner's behaviour but because as an encyclopedia, this site has content that experienced editors here wanted to link to.--A. B. (talk) 17:19, 30 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the site mysundial.ca. Simple inclusion of that link in any of our current articles would be hard to defend in terms of our policies as written, since it is a personal web site, and the author of the site can't be shown to be a recognized expert from reliable sources. I notice that there is some quirky (and possibly correct) information in there that may not be easily accessible elsewhere, for instance that site is the #1 Google hit for 'cycloid polar sundial.' If sundial enthusiasts feel that this information is valuable, they should consider writing appropriate articles in Wikipedia. Since mysundial.ca appears to be weak on sourcing, I'm not sure if this would be easy to do. People would have to dig up their own sources for stuff like 'cycloid polar sundial' which surely isn't easy. Still, this is the work of writing an encyclopedia. EdJohnston 16:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your comments. As this still remains on the backlog- please excuse a reply. The specific difficulty on this article is finding reliable and understandable information that is consistent in style. It is here that the said site is valuable- in that it is the most complete didactic site around. Whenever any maths is written- it is this site that I will check it against for accuracy- the very traits that brought the author to the attention of the 'checkbots' are vert traits needed in composing a bit of good maths. (Like the dogged attempt to add a link to every new language ... becomes the dogged attempt to cover all types of dial). So your points
  • our policies as written I have personally culled over half of the links of this wikipage- so take it seriously though personally the quality of the site would cause me to be generous- if this were the real problem then citations would now be viable - but the blacklist hits citations too.
  • recognised expert from reliable sources- so he is unpublished but as a designer (from memory:- Pinawa memorial Dial Manitoba etc)shows he is a respeced practitioner. Every respected sundial society lists his primer --- but Wikipedia no longer can (this goes for French, Dutch German sites etc). As he has articles on line published by at least three national societies isn't this enough evidence of peer review.
  • it seems quirky that we (bruised and battered) editors link in to the said site- but our readers have to link to five or six other lists, that indirectly point them to this site.
  • the disputed site is week on sourcing (and html!) but so is the Book of Mormon or the Christian Bible- (both personal websites in their day!) but Wiki standards don't extend to external sites.
No, it was for none of these reasons that the site was blacklisted, it was to do with potential interwiki spam. So let's admit the analysis was wrong. Look at the maths, look at the CADialing. The site is needed on English wiki- so whitelist please and soon. ClemRutter 22:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.mysundial.2see.de

Sundial we have asked many times for clarification as to how to keep this link. This policy is now stopping the development of the article. After a long period of time spent up loading images to be told that it cannot be saved is very frustrating. Please see talk pages for a history. The site to which this link goes does have its problems but is informative, instructional and knowledgeable. What more does one want? --Edmund Patrick ( confer work) 09:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would object to that, see above. /SvNH 03:26, 15 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3451033&blogID=267108076

I was attempting to cite sources for album information on The Live EP, an album by The Black Keys. As this was a digital release via MySpace the only "liner notes" for this album giving information on its production were posted to the band's official blog. This is a primary source posted directly by the band, so it seems like it classifies for the whitelist. The full URL is: /index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=3451033&blogID=267108076 sHARD 04:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some idea of why this link is necessary (& is it still or are there now other sources)? Is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=77284510&blogID=249286825

For page Anywhere But Here (Buffy comic) - the blog in question is the Dark Horse Comics blog, and contains the announcement of the winner, and the winning information, along with info from Joss Whedon on what he intends to do with the character. They haven't posted it anywhere else, so this is the prime source for this information. Thanks. --Thespian 10:49, 11 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us some idea of why this link is necessary and is it still the only source? Are there alternatives, is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:49, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

african-american-playwrights.suite101.com

Needed as a source for African American culture and Black Nativity at wikipedia. futurebird 19:37, 14 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like some more info on this. What pages are involved, what is needed to be cited, what makes this a reliable source? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 13:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The citation needed is for a noncontriversial statement, it's about the popularity of Black Nativity in African American communities. ie. just saying "there are a lot of productions of this play every Christmas. I could also source it by linking to every single production that has happened, but that seems too much like original research and annoying, and in any case, we know this is true, as it is common knowledge, but it's better to give just a little more information to back in up, especially for people not in the US who may have never heard of Black Nativity. I have a new York time article as one source, but it only talks about the production in New York City, I've looked, but have not found, anything to back up this simple idea but this little website. So based on these things I feel the source is "good enough" for the material being cited. I really just need (african-american-playwrights.suite101.com/article.cfm/black_nativity_by_langston_hughes ) this page.

Here is some of the info that the article backs up. "You’ll find a production of this musical performed in churches, theaters, on college campuses, and more in almost every major U.S. city and other regions." Like I said, common knowledge. By the way can you tell me why it was blacklisted in the first place? futurebird (talk) 15:06, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've  Done it (the page you wanted (but if you feel the article needs more come back). The blacklisting is a Meta level one for suite101.com itself with the request here, cheers --Herby talk thyme 15:12, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.thebestof.co.uk/southwark/news/39700

I need to add www.thebestof.co.uk/southwark/news/39700 as a reference for the article Gilly Flaherty but due to the spam protection blacklist, I can't. It's for the content with the section header "Millwall Lionesses", which provides information on the early part of the career of the Football (Soccer) player. Thanks. --Johngooner 00:18, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Is this the only available source for referencing? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:56, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

DecembeRadio MySpace blog

I'd like to be able to reference DecembeRadio's MySpace blog, as it is a primary news source posted directly by the band. It seems that should qualify for the whitelist. The URL is: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=14481114 —Zeagler 21:08, 3 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Can you give us more idea of why this link is necessary? Are there alternatives, is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:17, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Everything in the "Recent" section of the page was gleaned from their blog. At this point in the band's career, it's one of the only sources for details of their goings-on, and I believe it meets the criteria for WP:SELFPUB. —Zeagler (talk) 03:21, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done thanks --Herby talk thyme 16:40, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

No, thank you. :) —Zeagler (talk) 18:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Shaun of the Dead Director Edgar Wright blog entry on his Myspace page

I'm trying to revert some vandalism and format spamming on the Shaun of the Dead entry, however a reference to director Edgar Wright's myspace blog is stopping me updating.

The reference is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=144582906&blogID=324420860 and it appears to be important to the Shaun of the Dead article, in that it verifies the Directors motivations when they were reported to have refused to make an American TV series version of their movie. DrJon 09:38, 7 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a fan:) but can you give us more idea of why this link is necessary? Are there alternatives, is it a reliable source etc, thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:18, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:50, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_politics/49148

I don't see why suite101 is blacklisted, unless there were problems in the past with a specific spammer. If it's blocked for some kind of policy reason, OK, but if it's just to deal with obnoxious types then please allow me to link this article. Currently I've commented out the reference at Media scrum in order to get through - you can check there for the context. <eleland/talkedits> 20:38, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There was a lot of spam from the site because they encouraged writers to SEO their articles and choose to keep or get rid of writers based on how many hits their articles got. This seemd to encourage a lot of spamming - We also found out that there is no real editorial oversight of the published material and writers are allowed to write on pretty much whatever they like so almost none of the articles were reliable sources (I think there was a link white listed in the last few weeks that actually turned out to be by a bona fide expert). From A.B.'s response further up this page -

:For some background, here's a partial list of Suite101.com spam discussions on Wikipedia:

I don't know if Rhonda Parkinson is a notable commentator for what you're trying to use her for - if so then this link should be white listed so you can use it. If not you might want to look for a more reliable reference. -- SiobhanHansa 01:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
An answer to this will allow me to close the request? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:19, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard, closed -  Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Forcefeed announcements on blog

I am making an article on a Dutch metal band called Forcefeed. Now they made several announcements about their band, such as one of the members leaving and postponing one of their tours, and I would like to add the references to the article. The links are: Johan leaving: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=56961133&blogID=326633140 and Tour postponed: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=56961133&blogID=231990278 and the last one: the recording of their new album: blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=56961133&blogID=293621258

Please whitelist them. As you can see if you check out the links, they're normal announcements. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nake-Blade (talk • contribs) 12:32, 9 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given this edit appears to be your only contribution I am not sure how valid it is. Are you planning to work on the article soon? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard, closed -  Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:41, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

South Coast Trunk Road

I've created the article South Coast Trunk Road and feel it would be useful to add a link to hometown.aol.co.uk/hamcopublishing/southcoast.html There seems to be nothing objectionable in this particular web page. --rossb 14:53, 12 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issue is whether this link adds to teh encyclopedic content of Wikipedia rather than whether there is nothing objectionable on the site. Is it necessary for citation and does it meet reliability standards? Cheers --Herby talk thyme 08:30, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing further heard - will archive shortly as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 11:51, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that it adds information not readily found elsewhere, and is at least as useful as many other external websites that one sees on Wikipedia. Moreover, surely the criteria for actually blacklisting something should relate to whether the site is objectionable; whether that site is actually then linked to from a particular Wikipedia page is a matter for editorial judgment in each case, but there seems no justification for prohibiting a link that is not of itself objectionable in some way. --rossb (talk) 13:21, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the response &  Done --Herby talk thyme 13:32, 29 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

snipurl.com link on my user page

Please whitelist either snipurl.com or specifically snipurl.com/akrupp. I'd like to link to it on my userpage. Thanks!Anthony Krupp 03:46, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think snipurl is a link shortener? If so such sites are blacklisted at Meta as a matter of policy to prevent them being used maliciously or to circumvent current blocks. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:36, 15 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Equally, call me picky but why not place the actual link there? Closing in a couple of days if no further response - cheers --Herby talk thyme 11:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing heard, closed -  Not done --Herby talk thyme 16:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BombingScience.com on graffiti page

Hi, I recently saw that the BombingScience.com external link was removed from the "graffiti" articles of most languages. This site was in the external links of some of the "graffiti" pages for a few years in some languages, so I have added this external links to the graffiti articles of other languages. BombingScience.com is one of the largest and most important graffiti ressource on the web, with pictures from many countries, news on graffiti culture and events and a large community of graffiti writers contributing to the site.

It is clearly one of the few sites that are true comprehensive ressources on graffiti on the web and this is why I ask this site to be whitelisted in the graffiti articles. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.0.211.8 (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is actually blacklisted at Meta in response to this request. Give the spamming history rather more information about why you feel that the site should be whitelisted is necessary, thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:33, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As I wrote in the first message, the site was listed in the external link section of the graffiti articles in a few languages already for some time (for years in some languages). I simply took the link and posted the ressource in the graffiti articles of other langagues. This is not called spamming. I have simply posted a ressource that was used already in the graffiti articles to the same articles in other languages. If I was spamming, I would have posted the link in unrelated articles, or I would have posted a new link in all graffiti articles that wasn't "approved" already... but this site was, because it was listed as a ressource since a long time--65.94.188.41 (talk) 14:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There is no suggestion that you were responsible for the quite large number of links that have been placed to that site. However it is the reason that it is blacklisted. It is not the page the links are on that is the issue but the quantity of them across wikis that makes us call them "spam". If some links remained after blacklisting then it is because we did not get around to cleaning them up. I would need to see a request from an established user to consider this request. --Herby talk thyme 14:41, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Hum... I think you don't totally understand my point. The link was there years before I have added the links to the articles of other languages. I simply added a link that was already there to the other languages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.94.188.41 (talk) 21:51, 21 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


Approved Requests

A particular MySpace blog

I understand why most blogs are blacklisted, but certain bands use it to provide information. Gorgoroth have stated something, and it was rightfully sourced here, but with the link up, it is now impossible to edit the page (I'm not sure how they got it up to begin with) without removing a correct source. The link is http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=99208641&blogID=324636534 ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 23:18, 17 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as editing is concerned you can always make it "unclickable" for now. Are there no other option for citing? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:11, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Aparrently not. Thanks anyway. ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 01:02, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - valid request, established editor - cheers --Herby talk thyme 09:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Link works - thanks! ≈ The Haunted Angel Review Me! 10:04, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Declined Requests

urindar.sytes.net

Hello, this is my personal domain that hosts my blog, placed at urindar.sytes.net/_v22, and I would like to place a link to it in my user page. I currently cannot do so, because the domain *.sytes.net is blacklisted. Thanks a lot.--urindar 15:44, 13 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Given the fact that they have four links to personal sites already on their user page and that they have not edited for a couple of months I'm closing this as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 13:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

jehan.batcave.net

jehan.batcave.net is the url to my personal website, I attempted to add a link to my user page, and was told that it was blacklisted. this link is a collection of musings on various subjects, and in no way, shape, or form makes me any money. Jehan60188 13:25, 17 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Not what I would term an "established user" and not edited since this so closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 13:26, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Catholic Church

I feel that there is no need to blacklist any links within wikipedia simply because it relates to the Catholic Church. i personally am not catholic, but i do know catholic beliefs, and try to link to them as well as other religions, but i cant because someone put catholicism on the blacklist. the changes i try to add are all perfectly relevant, and yet i still am unable to make any changes. i tried to correct a nonexistant link on the page about euthanasia, Roman Catholic medical ethics, to Roman Catholicism, but for whatever reason, i found that this was blacklisted. It would be a relatively useful correction for any person looking for beliefs of the Catholic Church regarding euthanasia.

And i apologize if i put this under the wrong heading, im still relatively new and not entirely sure how to organize the discussion page, sorry for any inconvenience...

Hi sniper201092 to have something whitelisted you need to provide the link you want whitelisted (just leave off the http:// bit and it'll be postable). Then we'll be able to look up why it was blacklisted in the first place and meak a decision about whter to whitelist it. Thanks -- SiobhanHansa 03:00, 8 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing heard for a couple of weeks so closed as  Not done --Herby talk thyme 13:27, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

www.consumeralertsystem.com

This webpage contains a download link for spyware, however, I have put a disclaimer cautioning the user.

This should be able to be used on Consumer alert system when I create it; right now, the article is in my 2nd sandbox.

This will provide a link for the users to see the website, which is why this may be useful to Wikipedia. Thank you. Jonathan talk 03:23, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Am I getting this right - you want to have a site that has spyware on it whitelisted? For me that would be pretty close to "no" but am I misunderstanding something? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 09:53, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Yes...but I have put an uninstallation link and have also cautioned the user in bold text next to the link, so they do know about it. Thanks! —Jonathan 14:14, 15 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Ok - personally I am not going to whitelist anything that may cause someone using Wikipedia in good faith to access a site that might be undesirable. Interestingly I find that my HOSTS file blocks the site because of "[PcTools.CasinoClient]". --Herby talk thyme 15:35, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I guess I'll just put the actual address...if they want it that bad, they can type it themselves. —Jonathan 22:24, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

So closed and  Not done --Herby talk thyme 09:12, 24 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

www.cais-soas.com

An introductory phrase on Mithraic Mysteries has required a source for a short time now, and since no one else took the initiative, I made a quick search and found a proper source almost instantly. Unfortunately, it appears to be blacklisted for no perceivable reason. It's essentially an ancient Iranian study group, and although I may be missing something here, I don't really see any reason why this site is on the blacklist. It's a rather informative site- can this be whitelisted, or can one elucidate on why this site happens to be blocked?--C.Logan (talk) 10:00, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've done some reading on the blacklist, and I've seen the reasons for blacklisting (though the severity of it seems exaggerated to me- I know little about copyright issues). In any case, I've found the original source of the text at Encyclopedia Iranica, so the problem has been solved.--C.Logan (talk) 10:13, 26 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


Netfirms

The majority of entries in the whitelist are for netfirms.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 majority of these links are to low-quality sub-geocities sites that have conspicuous netfirms banners and content that can just as easily be found on non-spammy sites. Why the carte blanche?

chocolateboy (talk) 04:20, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Netfirms is a popular (and, I believe, free) webhost, so although a lot of the sites are spammed, and that's presumably the reason for blacklisting the domain in the first place, it's perfectly possible for many useful sites to be on the domain. I haven't looked to see why the particular sites we have have been white listed - but if you have evidence that any of them have been spammed I expect that would be good cause to take them off the list. General content issues can also be dealt with on each article's talk page. I don't disagree with your characterization of the sites in general but others may and it doesn't stop some from being good. -- SiobhanHansa 16:04, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Troubleshooting and problems



END

Discussion

Spam filter or editorial filter?

As I said in #Without_warning.21, this is a spam filter, and should not be used to block links that are prohibited merely for editorial reasons, like blog.myspace.com or links that violate WP:C. There will always be a few instances in which such links are appropriate. Please remove all such domains.

If they're a persistent problem, create a bot to flag such links for review by editors; don't just block them mechanically. This is causing people to lose their work unnecessarily. — Omegatron 13:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=174607976"