MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 00:27, 28 May 2008 (→‎Encyclopedia Dramatica). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

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

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

    Also in your request, please include the following:

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

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

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

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

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|215396422#section_name}}

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

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

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

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    technocracynet.eu

    Ok, I'm not that familiar with this process, but I think this is where I'm supposed to ask this. The Website technocracynet.eu has been blacklisted for about 2 weeks now, and I'd like to get it unblocked. I'm not sure if you need just the main site or specific subpages, if those are needed I can provide them too.

    The site is absolutely not spam or anything like that, it's the website of an organization called the "Network of European Technocrats", part of the Technocracy movement. Links to the site are needed (specifically in the Technocracy movement article) both to give references about the group and to link some vital source information needed for the article (which is currently not available anywhere else, to my knowledge). Namely this PDF document: technocracynet.eu/files/etsc1_3.pdf . —Preceding unsigned comment added by Hibernian (talk • contribs) 02:52, 24 April 2008

    Here's the blacklisting entry by Guy with his comment on the reason. I don't really understand what's going on with this one -- I've left a note for Guy. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:36, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Above user is involved in the dispute which led to blacklisting. The originators of this content require you to register in order to receive it [1]; primary sources are not necessary references (we'd need secondary sources to avoid original research). See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Network of European Technocrats for more information: user:Hibernian is associated with the linked site. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry I forgot to sign my last post, don't know how that happened, anyway. JzG, that's the second time you've accused me of being "associated" with NET, however I have stated on many occasions that I am not a member of that group, I want this unblocked not because I'm involved with the site (which I am not), but because I do sincerely believe that the article needs to have mention of the European movement and especially because it needs the study course. That link to technocracyinc.org is news to me, but I don't think it’s really an issue, I'm pretty sure they give it out upon request; you certainly don't need to register in any way. I mean I have the document on my computer because I simply asked them for it (and I'm not registered or anything). They seem to have chosen not to have it as a download on their site, but it's widely available, NET got it from a site called http://www.technocracy.ca/ , and they (NET) are the only ones I know of who offer it as a download usable on Wiki, I don't think there's any copyright issues, if that's what you're concerned about. BTW the article does have secondary sources, the Akin book etc, and I'm pretty sure that in this case a primary source such as this is not only acceptable, but highly desirable for the article. Even if the TSC becomes available elsewhere, blacklisting the NET site as "Spam" is simply not justifiable, it my be many things, but it is not spam. --Hibernian (talk) 01:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    aceshowbiz.com/celebrity/meagan_good

    Hi! This link is of great importance. It mentions the ethnicity of actress Meagan good, which is difficult to find just like many other actors/actresses that are multiracial. This will provide more information to the article as well. The source is legit and not fan based therefore it is not biased. Thank You for your timeMcelite (talk) 15:39, 24 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi has anyone noticed this my request?? To have this put on the whitelist so it can be used for the Meagan Good article?Mcelite (talk) 02:09, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The question here is about verifiability & reliablility. More information would be good, thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:02, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Well the website is not a fan site or independently researched. Nor does it state that it's info is not fully reliable, and it is not editable by members.Mcelite (talk) 18:45, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    In terms of verifiability & reliablility they seem to meet all requirements and are even ranked by Celebrity Buzz which only ranks legit websites that deal with celebrities.Mcelite (talk) 04:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.digitpress.com/reviews/tmek.htm

    Why the site should be whitelisted:
    I only request the specific link be whitelisted. This specific link has information valuable to the Wikipedia T-Mek article. It was lost by the last edit.
    Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link:
    en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-Mek
    Ibjoe (talk) 06:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll keep checking back every few days - or is there anything else I need to do?
    Ibjoe (talk) 19:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It's a review of an arcade game.... I'm not sure I see that as vital to the project. If it is then surely there should be other sources that are reliable elsewhere? Thanks --Herby talk thyme 11:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, it is an outside review of the arcade game that the referencing wikipedia article is about, and a pretty good one. While it is not vital, it is useful. There actually aren't that many reviews available. I think it would increase the quality of the article if I could restore the link, which has not changed since I initiated the article. However, if www.digitpress.com is indeed evil, then I can understand even this useful page being blocked. Thank you for the consideration, and I'll continue monitoring until the request is either accepted or rejected. Ibjoe (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    My Tiny Life

    Please whitelist www.lulu.com/content/1070691 for linking from Julian Dibbell. It is a link to the online PDF version of the book referenced from the article. Despite being on lulu.com, it is a republication of the published book, not a self-publication. Sanxiyn (talk) 00:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    While it is downloadable it is a selling page. Not inclined personally --Herby talk thyme 11:43, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Please consider this fact: since the book is out-of-print, this website is likely to be the only way for readers to get the work cited in the article. Why cite the work if one cannot get the work anyway? See also publication and copyright status of this work from the author's blog.
    The book is also cited in LambdaMOO. Sanxiyn (talk) 14:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]




    nepalelectionportal.org

    I really don't know why this was black-listed in the first place. nepalelectionportal.org is an interesting site, essential as reference for many articles on Nepalese politics. --Soman (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It does not appear blacklisted:
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:44, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Toadie's Myspace Blog

    Link is blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=1839615&blogID=393290625 . The official announcement of the band releasing a new recording is big news for them and is the first place they officially announced it. This of course would help to update the toadies page on wikipedia, especially the section with information on the new album. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eviladam (talk • contribs) 20:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.allaahuakbar.net/ansaruallah/

    A useful page previously linked on the Dwight York and Nuwaubianism pages that is on a site that has been blacklisted for some reason (spam, I think). In any case, this particular page is useful and wasn't added by a spammer or for spam purposes. -Moorlock (talk) 20:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    NutrientSearch.com

    My name is Adam Nicholson, and I work as the communications director for NutrientSearch.com, formerly known as MarjoenHealth.com. For the following reasons, I respectfully ask that the NutrientSearch.com domain be un-blacklisted and/or whitelisted (all that apply).

    Short version:

    • Link to be whitelisted: NutrientSearch.com
    • Page to use link on: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eicosatetraenoic_acid
    • Why link would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper: The article is a stub. Currently, the only cited reference in the article is MarjoenHealth.com, which IS NutrientSearch.com by another, older name that is soon to be phased out. NutrientSearch.com is a data-driven nutritional health website that makes no direct sales of anything and whose interests are best served by providing researched, unadulterated, useful information.

    Long version:

    In a recent Google search, I was pleasantly surprised to find that our website had been cited as a reference in Wikipedia's article on eicosatetraenoic acid. However, the URL given (marjoenhealth.com/Nutrients/Eicosatetraenoic_acid_(ETA).htm) points to a domain (marjoenhealth.com) that we are phasing out, and the outgoing link directs to a "Page Not Found" error page. I tried to update the link and received a message that our current domain, NutrientSearch.com, is currently blacklisted.

    I have searched the following in hope of determining the impetus for the blacklisting:

    • en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives
    • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist
    • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/Log
    • meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Spam_blacklist/LogPre2008

    -- but a ctrl+F search for "nutrientsearch" yields nothing on any of these pages. Admittedly, I am not well versed in the deeper workings of Wikipedia, but having spent all morning searching, I can find no evidence of any reason for NutrientSearch.com's blacklisting and must assume for the nonce that there is none. If the pertinent information is available, would someone please email it to contact@nutrientsearch.com so that I may attempt to address the issue?

    In the meanwhile, I will address the "spam" issue implied in the generic spam filter notice by stating that our site employs, including me, two people (count 'em: one, two) in total. Thus far all of our efforts have gone to content development, and if I may say so myself, our content is thoroughly researched, high caliber nutritional health information. There is nothing stupid, pointless, or annoying about it, and we are troubled by the "spam" label. Further, we work in our free time and have neither the motivation nor the resources to canvass links or messages at Wikipedia or elsewhere. In fact, the existing link, mentioned above, appears to be the only link to our site on Wikipedia.

    As a fledgling website, it is critical for NutrientSearch.com to maintain both credibility and visibility, and we have invested, conservatively, a year and a half's labor to ensure we do so. It feels unfair to us that a seemingly causeless addition of our domain to Wikipedia's blacklist should negatively impact both, as it does not only on the Wikipedia website but through major search engines like Google and Yahoo (searchenginejournal.com/wikipedia-spam-resulting-in-google-yahoo-penalties/5854/).

    Again, I request that any and all necessary remedies to NutrientSearch.com's blacklisting -- whether that be removing the domain from blacklists and/or whitelisting the domain -- be enacted by anyone in a position to do so.

    Respectfully,

    Adam Nicholson, communications director NutrientSearch.com 98.215.229.241 (talk) 22:55, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Problem solved.  Not done, see my comment below. MER-C 07:36, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Suite101

    Please whitelist psychic-abilities.suite101.com/article.cfm/precognitive_dreams to be linked with Precognitive Dreams. The article in question contains recent scientific information concerning brainscans. Suite101 is a reliable literature sight maintained by editors that regularly review the quality of work. With 12 years online, over 100,000 articles and 1,000 professional, paid contract writers, Suite101.com is dedicated to delivering quality expertise and writing increasingly rare in the online world. If Suite101 in general could be whitelisted, I thank you. Beverly Hill, User: pnerissaPnerissa (talk) 12:45, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for the request Beverly, unfortunatly the link your asking for is to your article. External links policy on Advertising and conflicts of interest states You should avoid linking to a website that you own, maintain or represent, additionaly;
    Suite101 links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 14:10, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Pnerissa, the global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
    Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org
    Reference
    • www.suite101.com/profile.cfm/pnerissa
    Previous Suite101.com discussions
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html

    1. the site should be whitelisted as it is the only place where there is an English translation of the Gerstein Report. There is an online link to a German text (he wrote 2) and the French text can be found in a library.
    2. the article Gerstein Report would benefit from this link as readers would be able to consult the actual text.
    3. I propose to put the text in the section External links as follows:
    • deathcamps.org/belzec/gerstein.html The Gerstein Report (in English)

    If there is a better solution for letting readers find out where they can find an English text, please let me know. --Joel Mc (talk) 16:46, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks,  Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:02, 24 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.suriya-online.com

    Hi, can anyone please unblcok www.suriya-online.com I cant even write that link here entirely before I save coz when I wanna save it says its black listed so its really annoying for this is surya sivakumar ( tamil actor)s official website so can anyone please whitelist this website and make it possible to add it entirely on suryas biography page thanks GayaGaya 15 (talk) 19:07, 26 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    see WikiProject Spam Item see WikiProject Spam Item 2 Administrators' noticeboard‎. These sites have been banned because of abuse. --Hu12 (talk) 03:45, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Additional recent Disruption ([2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14] )
    Accounts
    Gaya 15 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Tysonthomas143 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    84.13.160.202 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 04:20, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    pz10.invisionfree.com/Pigeon_Games/index.php?act=idx

    Could this be whitelisted as it is important to put onto the Universal Fighting System External links as we are a very promnant team in the UFS community and we would like more players to knwo about our Forum. This would allow them to see up cming events in our area and also would link the UFS commuinity more. Thank you— Team FF (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 20:57, 26 May 2008 (UTC).[reply]

    Forums are links to avoid see External links policy. Forums are also not considered Reliable or Verifiable sources to be used on Wikipedia. Thirdly, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and is not a place to to promote a site, or this forum. thanks. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    aluminiumleader.com

    This site was blacklisted for being added to such pages as aluminium, bauxite, ruby etc. However, it should be pointed out that aluminiumleader.com is a web resource dedicated especially to aluminium - the history of the metal, its invention, ways of production and utilization. Aluminium is produced from alumina and before that from bauxite. Aluminium oxides are rubies, sapphires and other precious and semi-procious stones mention in the part MINERALS on the site. That is why the links on this web site were added to the respective articles. It is an informative, encyclopaedic, interactive resource in Russian and English without any ads or promotions. Therefore, the site should be removed from the spamlist and added to the pages Aluminium, as well as bauxite and alumina from which aluminium is produced. LOscritor —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.248.20.174 (talk) 12:04, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    These links were spammed despite requests to stop. They were also spammed far beyond our English and Russian projectsfrom Afrikaans to Ukrainian:
    Please refer to the following guidelines for editors:
    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be whitelisted on a page by page basis or removed from the blacklist altogether.
    The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
    Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 12:47, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    GameStooge

    24.215.166.135 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Encyclopedia Dramatica

    The Encyclopedia Dramatica Wiki page has deemed notable for inclusion. The article, however, would benefit from links to the page itself, such as its about page. Therefore, requesting that encyclopediadramatica.com be allowed for addition to improve its article. Buspar (talk) 23:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Main page was previously  Done ( http://www.encyclopediadramatica.com/Main_Page), and has been included in the article since 02:35, 19 May 2008. see Talk:Encyclopedia_Dramatica/Archive_1#Whitelisted.--Hu12 (talk) 00:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    Declined Requests

    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    Criteria for Whitelisting

    Can we share any thoughts on these please. I don't see anything specific in the way of pointers so I guess we can make our own.

    So far my view have been that is should be

    1. An established editor
    2. Going into a "worthwhile" article
    3. That the editor can be interested enough to present some sort of case
    4. That the whitelisting should be aimed as far as possible at solely what is required

    It would be good to have the views of others too. --Herby talk thyme 13:34, 1 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    My two cents:
    • Whitelisting should not open the door to a bunch of spam. This would be most likely if the requested whitelisting was a home page as opposed to a deep link
    • Proposed link must meet the Reliable Sources Guideline and be "encyclopedic".
    • Requester sends money to the whitelisting admin.
    --A. B. (talk) 06:54, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    LOL! If they send enough, maybe we'll even call off the Pornographic Fire Parrot ;-) --Versageek 07:08, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Strangely, given recent publicity.... I wondered about putting something on my user page in the form of a "deposit box" :)--Herby talk thyme 07:57, 6 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    Bearer bonds fit nicely in deposit boxes, and strangely have a calming effect on Fire Parrots--Hu12 (talk) 09:59, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Response to Adminstrator Herby's "My Two Cents"

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


    I don't know how this will affect chances of redress, but I must say that I find the above discussion of administrator kickbacks for de-blacklisting both inappropriate and objectionable. Please bear in mind the following:

    • You have posted this conversation in a forum where a figure likely approaching 100% of site representatives feel that they have been unjustly treated by administrators, and you are not improving that perception.
    • The very suggestion that sites must pay in order to not be blacklisted fosters corruption and provides incentive to arbitrarily blacklist sites on speculation of profit.
    • Wikipedia is, by its own description, a free and open content project, and the above discussion is antithetical to both.
    • This kind of jarring tangential interjection has a tendency to derail the discussion at hand -- as is evidenced by the breakaway nature of the extortion conversation to the exclusion of the original point.
    • On that note, the first fleeting comment, while in bafflingly poor taste and showing exquisitely poor judgment, might have been written off as facetious. However, the ensuing back-and-forth, including discussion of easy-pay methods and penalties for non-payment makes it more and more difficult to ignore. Even if the whole discussion is dismissed as not serious, each line in the dialogue further erodes your gravitas as an administrator.

    That said, and at the risk of political suicide, I suggest you devote your energy here to reviewing site requests for whitelistings, my own included.

    Adam Nicholson, communications director NutrientSearch.com 98.215.229.241 (talk) 17:13, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Interesting - because it was not actually my two cents. I certainly apologise for any offence caused but the issue was on whether we had any specific guidance for whitelisted and offering ideas (in my first post). It is six months old & should have been archived long ago - equally I should not have placed the flippant remark - like all of us here I am a volunteer --Herby talk thyme 14:20, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm inclined to agree with Mr. Nicholson's point #1, above. I found this page while reading up on WP policies in general (I'm just a regular editor -- nobody special). I don't know anything about this person or his website/company, and I'm also prone to making potentially objectionable jokes in possibly inappropriate areas with annoyingly winsome glee, but I have to admit this discussion is is very specifically irreverent and should probably be removed, to save the feelings of visitors who were likely already disgruntled before they arrived. I have no doubt that money has never changed hands (and never will) in the processing of whitelisting/blacklisting requests, and that the conversation above is nothing more than workplace banter, but I do think it's literally misplaced. Sugarbat (talk) 06:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    First, Adam Nicholson, communications director NutrientSearch.com (Adsense -pub-5026275329896307), this is a MediaWiki page and is not a platform for your personal views. Reviewing site requests is always done in line with wikipeda policy and practice. Wikipedia owes much of its success to its openness. However, that very openness sometimes attracts people who seek to exploit the site for their own profit or adjent. This is fact is true. It is also true that you are here for your comercial and financial adjenda ie. MarjoenHealth.com/ NutrientSearch.com. It's apparent that your account and IP's are only here using wikipedia as platform for self-promotion (Adam Nicholson, communications director NutrientSearch.com ). You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here for your own adjena. Faulting trusted, high-volume, etablished administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished volunteers is wholey inapropriate. May want to read;
    The MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is not the Wikipedia complaints department, nor is it intended to help users with their grieving process. Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising"--Hu12 (talk) 08:58, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Besides, a quick search using Science Direct shows plenty of hits for "eicosatetraenoic acid". Unlike your website, these papers actually have been (formally) peer reviewed, published in an academic journal and are much better for encyclopedia writing. MER-C 13:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hu12: Nice! (Your "adjena," I mean.) Sugarbat (talk) 20:39, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Chomp! chomp! ;) WP:NOT#FORUM, Closed. --Hu12 (talk) 21:26, 23 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    "Etablished [sic] volunteers" exempt from criticism?

    [Please note: In the below post, I am addressing ONLY the following statements made by HU12, and nothing else: "First, Adam Nicholson,[...]this is a MediaWiki page and is not a platform for your personal views[...]You are not here to build an encyclopedia, you are here for your own adjena [sic]. Faulting trusted, high-volume, etablished administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished [sic] volunteers is wholey [sic] inapropriate [sic]." I have no opinion about Nicholson's request for whitelisting, nor am I addressing WP policy regarding white/blacklisting.]

    Hu12:

    I understand you to be telling Nicholson (and all at-large visitors to this page):

    1.) Don't object, on this page, to tasteless jokes made on this page.
    2.) If a WP admin has hit the "save-page" button enough times, over a long-enough period, it doesn't matter whether the edits were appropriate because a certain (large) number of edits over a certain (long-enough) period of time automatically promotes said admin to "trusted" status.
    3.) Based on the criteria in #2, above, it is forbidden to criticize "trusted" admins.
    • (For a variety of reasons, not excluding your tenuous handle on the English language) I was amazed to see that you're an admin. When I read your first response to Nicholson, above, I assumed you were just as much of a bystander (i.e., regular editor) as I was/am -- it wasn't until your tasteless response to my last post (wherein I advised you not to bite the newcomers -- see your "Chomp, chomp! ;)") that I clicked through to your user page. If I didn't consider such a diversion not the best use of my WP time, I'd seriously consider lodging a complaint based on your above posts. Your responses to both Nicholson and me belie not just your fitness as an impartial administrator, but your ability to effectively communicate with both guests and editors. Which not only compels me (speaking of "using Wikipedia as a platform for self-promotion"!) to recommend you brush up on the conflict-of-interest guidelines, yourself (since I'm hard pressed to imagine a "consensus" of admins sharing your view vis à vis exemption, based on tenure/number of edits, of admins from criticism), but also leads me to my second point:
    • Can you show me any evidence to support your assertion that this "discussion" page isn't just a platform for posters' personal views, but primarily a platform for such views? Was this page not created for the express purpose of logging requests for, or comments about, either inclusion in a whitelist or blacklist? In other words, are the criteria for inclusion/exclusion not at least partially subjective (on the parts of both admins and the websites' advocates), and therefore, um, personal? It's not likely a poster here is extremely familiar with WP protocol in general (if he/she were, he/she probably would already have built the site to comply, or would at least have already known the reason[s] for exclusion and would therefore not have visited this page) or to know the technical, WP definition of "personal views," anyway, so please do consider not arguing that point on that basis.
    The sets of discussions on this page, in particular, involve mostly people who, whatever their motivations, are unfamiliar with WP protocol (as mentioned above) and are therefore especially eligible for diplomatic treatment -- ESPECIALLY by administrators (or at least administrators behaving in good faith). An admin being rude anywhere on WP is unacceptable, but on a page that's devoted to the pleas of (as Nicholson aptly pointed out) strangers to WP who are already frustrated, it's not just unaesthetic -- it's counterproductive: How, precisely, is antagonizing someone who's already irritated good administration? (And if you're thinking, at the moment you're reading this, something like "most of the jackasses complaining about the blacklist are exploitative and underhanded," it probably won't hurt you too much to go ahead and click on the good faith link instead of ignoring it as you probably did a minute ago.)
    • It wasn't Nicholson who first deviated from the primary context of this page; it was the admins -- and if the joke hadn't been made in the first place, Nicholson would not have criticized it. As far as I'm concerned, the joke-issue has been more than sufficiently addressed by Herby and needs no other action on his part, but now I will ask you to explain yourself. I'm afraid I don't much see the difference between the "personal view" of a set of admins proposing (on the request-for-whitelist page) black-marketing the whitelist and Nicholson's "personal view" that such jokes are inappropriate on the request-for-whitelist page. If there is a difference, it must be that Nicholson wished to be taken seriously and his comments to that end more closely related to the stated context of the discussion page itself. Obviously none of this has occurred to you, and I'm actually a hundred times more annoyed by your post (directed at Nicholson, above) than I could ever imaging being by the jokey tangent in question, because not only are your points bogus, but you went out of your way to humiliate a newcomer. I find that attitude (and its manifestation) offensive in *any* WP editor, but frankly egregious on the part of an admin.
    • It is clear, from your statement: "Faulting trusted, high-volume, etablished administrative volunteers for engaging in harmless humorous banter with other trusted, high-volume etablished volunteers is wholey inapropriate," that you, yourself, would do well to do some [[WP:circular logic|reading] (and not just of a dictionary). Another great reason for marvelling at your adminship is your inability to recognize your own ridiculousness in the form of your fallacious "logic." And will I, too, get an equally laughable carpet-calling, I wonder? Or do you think you're immune, too? Sugarbat (talk) 21:19, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Header

    I put the header in a template to reduce size of this page and included MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist/Indicators which is loosly based off of RCU's indicators.--Hu12 (talk) 20:33, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Spam protection

    I do not know if he is the right place, but when I try to post on one talk page I get this message "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter:" I tried to use another computer and I got the same message. Can you tell me what is wrong please? I am not adding any link. 89.181.19.14 (talk) 21:42, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Please tell us what page you were editing when you got the message and then we can look at it. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 08:23, 25 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The page is this one: Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Thank you.81.193.32.83 (talk) 15:59, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Talk:Disappearance of Madeleine McCann Should be fine now. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 20:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The same problem here. I tried to edit a sentence in the article vegan. I did not try to add a link but I was still spam blocked. Since the spam block bot doesn't give the link which I was supposedly trying to spam, there is nothing I can do. It is very frustrating. Vapour (talk) 14:27, 21 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Per-page whitelisting

    Is it possible to do per-page whitelisting, similar to the bad image list? Thanks in advance, Iamunknown 08:17, 26 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    A proposed bot (SquelchBot) to automatically revert the addition of certain external links

    Please see Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SquelchBot if you have comments. Thank you, Iamunknown 01:04, 29 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Freerepublic

    This has been blacklisted after discussion on the reliable sources noticeboard. But because the link was used as an illustration in the discussion, editing of that page is now blocked. I tried to get rid of the problem by nowiki-ing the link, but it hasn't worked. Could you help me unlock that page. Many thanks.Itsmejudith (talk) 14:16, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Other projects with active whitelists

    I was unable to format this so as to fit in the left column where x-wiki links normally go. This, as well as a similar list for other local blacklists (on our blacklist's talk page) may be useful information. --A. B. (talk) 14:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=215396422"