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 A. B. (talk | contribs) at 15:41, 8 September 2008 (→‎www.allaahuakbar.net/ansaruallah/: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

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

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

    Also in your request, please include the following:

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

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

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

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

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|237081407#section_name}}

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

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

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

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

    www.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]
    OK, I give up. Someone removed the only other review link as spam anyway. Neither link was spam AFAICT, but neither was vital. Please consider my request canceled. Thank you. Ibjoe (talk) 02:05, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, here's the spam record:
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:10, 8 September 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]

    Is this an official blog belonging to the band? If so, I'll whitelist it. Otherwise, we don't use blogs as references. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:17, 8 September 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]

    Here's the history:
    Offsetting this
    • This link was not spammed on the two pages requested
    • The whitelist request comes from an established user.
    • The request is for a subdomain, not the entire domain
     Done --A. B. (talk • contribs) 15:41, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    GameStooge

    24.215.166.135 (talk) 18:08, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    2old2play.com has been a source of problems
    gamestooge.com was blacklisted by Nick in connection with an edit war.[1]
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:02, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    White listing specific links shouldn't be a problem if the person wishing to use the site as a reference can provide justification for doing so. I'm not entirely comfortable with links being used for purposes other than referencing though. Nick (talk) 08:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just referencing. A few articles were created because GameStooge.com broke the news first. (ie. Ticket to Ride (video game), Lost Cities (video game) - the links used: www.gamestooge.com/2008/03/21/ticket-to-ride-coming-to-xbla for Ticket to Ride, www.gamestooge.com/2008/03/04/lost-cities-coming-to-xbox-live-arcade Lost Cities - just samples that GS is NOT a "spam site". (It also does its own reviews, previews, interviews, etc.) Other sites often refer to some of our news stories (this X3F article is just one example) as well (GS reciprocates when it uses other site's news). JAF1970 (talk) 08:26, 29 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there a reason GameStooge is still blacklisted? JAF1970 (talk) 16:46, 24 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Because it was spammed and because it was being used as a source when it fails WP:RS, I believe. Guy (Help!) 19:50, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is STILL NOT SPAM, and I've already spoken to an admin who has agreed with me. I'm starting to get very very angry here. JAF1970 (talk) 15:41, 8 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • NOW 2OLD2PLAY IS SUDDENLY A SPAM SITE?! JAF1970 (talk) 15:04, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined, anger is not a credible reason for whitelisting, no evidence is presented that the link would enhance the encyclopaedia rather than give benefit to the site concerned. Guy (Help!) 08:46, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Official Flight of the Conchords Blog

    This should be whitelisted because it is the band's official blog. They post news on it. News that should be on the Flight of the Conchords wikipedia article, but one cannot reference to a blog. They announced their second season via this very blog: http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=58557805&blogID=374524428 71.231.175.227 (talk) 23:26, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby talk thyme 16:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    infolive.sytes.net

    There is an external link in 2B1 Oka article about a soviet self-propelled mortar. The link points to a blog or alike with a real in-depth historical explanation (if you don't know Russian, just look at the photos) to the otherwise very stub wiki-article. First I thought it was a wiki-markup error when saw a whitespace beetween “infolive” and “sytes.net”, but when tried to correct, I received an error message from spam blocking filter. Please, white list the site, because as for now the link looks broken and is unusable unless extracted manually. 217.172.21.161 (talk) 08:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request. --Herby talk thyme 16:35, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Symphony in Peril's MySpace blog

    I was doing some work to expand the article for the band Symphony in Peril and found that MySpace blog URLs were blacklisted. I would like the following two URLs whitelisted as they pertain to specific announcements directly from the band regarding a member change and the band's breakup:

    http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2215155&blogID=19583901 http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2215155&blogID=55272717

    Theonethird (talk) 17:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Official I Bet You MySpace blog

    1. I think it should be whitelisted as it is as far as I could find the only, and more important, a quite reliable source for current and future information on the show and behind the scenes developments.
    2. In this case, the article on I Bet You would benefit from it, as I would like to use it as a citation to back up the claim on an upcoming season three. It is currently placed between html comment tags after the relevant sentence.
    3. http://blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=97068158&blogID=395526769

    I hope that this blog or at least this url can be whitelisted, just as Zach Braff's MySpace Blog. Thanks in advance!
    Ewald (talk) 14:55, 20 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Any thoughts yet? Some MySpace blogs seem to be able to obtain whitelisting. Such as the recently approved MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#Another_one_of_Jenna_Fischer.27s_MySpace_blog_entries. Thanks in advance. - Ewald (talk) 08:16, 7 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Official Pendulum MySpace blog

    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=379158051
    Contains irrefutable information about a disputed release date for use in the article Propane Nightmares which will help to resolve any further arguments regarding the release date.
    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=407371549
    Contains information about the (faulty) Australian version of In Silico which may be useful in the article at some point.
    blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=75424283&blogID=413030364
    Information confirming the release date and formats of The Other Side which may be useful in supporting the article up until the release.

    Several pages from this blog would be useful if whitelisted. I've listed them all separately to make it easier to read. Whitelisting any of these pages would be helpful, particularly the first page – Ikara talk → 21:54, 8 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    After reading through the blog I have found other references that would be useful in several Pendulum articles, however I cannot list all the ones that will definitely get used right now. Ideally it would help to have all pages on the blog whitelisted, as well as the top level page for general reference, using an expression similar to:
    \bblog\.myspace\.com/index\.cfm\?fuseaction=blog\.(view|ListAll)&friendID=75424283\b
    I haven't seen this method used in the whitelist yet so it may not be approved of, but it should be noted that the expression will only match pages in the Pendulum blog, and assuming one of them is allowed, there should be no problem with the others. In any case the above entries would still be very useful, and there should be no problem with them. I could really use the above three, so a speedy reply would be very helpful. Thanks – Ikara talk → 23:40, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Another related request; blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.ListAll&friendID=6039370, which is Rob Swire's official MySpace blog (the band's blog wasn't used before mid-2007) where he states that the band does/did not endorse JungleSound Gold – a CD released boasting "Mixed by Pendulum" on the cover. This is stated in Pendulum discography and should most certainly be supported with a reference, but this is the only one I have found so far. As before the ideal would be:
    \bblog\.myspace\.com/index\.cfm\?fuseaction=blog\.(view|ListAll)&friendID=6039370\b
    Any chance of a reply soon? Thanks again – Ikara talk → 17:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    nefac.net

    NEFAC is one of the most prominent anarcho-communist organisations on the planet, and there should be a link in their article to their official website. On behalf of the Anarchism task force, Skomorokh 02:30, 29 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.associatedcontent.com

    The link added to the Montauk Monster wiki article, taken from AssociatedContent, should not be blacklisted. The link in question is to an Associated Content article that contains a firsthand interview with a USDA official and makes reference to a statement by the Director of Plum Island that was emailed to the author of the Associated Content article by the Department of Homeland Security officials. This is verifiable information and it contributes to an understanding of the wiki article. Without this information, wiki readers do not know the DHS or USDA position on the Montauk Monster and may be left with a mis-impression concerning a link between the facility and the Montauk Monster. This is the link (excluding the root because it would be blacklisted again): /article/920725/dhs_debunks_monster_of_montauk_mystery.html?page=2&cat=8 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Catloverbonifant (talk • contribs) 21:43, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to whitelist based on this being the only contribution from this user. --Herby talk thyme 10:42, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined per Herby. The rationale for whitelisting includes the reasons we can't use this. Guy (Help!) 10:49, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    da Vinci Surgery Systems

    Hey Guys,

    I think there's some mistake, because da Vinci Systems is a surgical utility Web site for the surgical equipment. I am desigining a Wikipedia page for a robotic surgeon and the site is a major External Link, so I'd appreciate it if you could check it out and see what the deal is. Thanks. --Nmishra9 (talk) 19:18, 5 August 2008 (UTC)nmishra9[reply]

    For background, it appears that the site was originally blacklisted due to multiple parties posting the link to multiple articles on Wikipedia, and appeared to have been done for the purpose of promotion/advertising. For reference, the spam report can be viewed here (note, link is to an archive, please do not add new comments): http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jun_1#davincisurgery.com
    The whitelisting (or removal from the blacklist) will need to be evaluated by admins with access to make the change ... I'm just providing the link for reference purposes. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 19:36, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Hum - very spammy history - personally I would not be happy whitelisting this one. Sorry --Herby talk thyme 10:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm sensing a conflict of interest from what appears to be a single-purpose account here. All his edits are to the device mentioned or to the company's champion surgeon (medical device companies make heavy use of champion surgeons in their marketing). Guy (Help!) 10:52, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    MySpace blog

    Mike Skinner, more commonly known as The Streets, has announced on his MySpace blog (blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=2536242&blogID=421632554) today the title of his next album (excluding Everything Is Borrowed, to be released next month). I've made note of this in the article, but would like to source it properly. Cheers, faithless (speak) 12:43, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    A specific signed and dated review published as www.suite101.com/article.cfm/poetry_magazine_review/76867

    I only need this one link, to add to the References section in Agnieszka's Dowry. Exact form given below. Actually, it's already in the article, minus the "http://" part. I am responding to another editor demanding more sources. This is an independent third-party review of a fairly in-depth kind. It's only fault is that it contains outdated links to the magazine, since moved to asgp.org from enteract.com --Mareklug talk 13:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Heather O'Neil. [www.suite101.com/article.cfm/poetry_magazine_review/76867 "Agnieszka's Dowry (AgD)"], Suite101.com, 7 August 2001. (Accessed 7 August 2008).
    • When did we change policy so that blogs became reliable sources? Guy (Help!) 10:54, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's not a blog, it's a huge basically spam site that at least for a time in the early 2000s acted as a host to bonafide reviewers in music and small press, but it did not last. Nonetheless, it is a repository of some good content, esp. when signed and dated. There are suite101.com entries on the frigging white list! Why is the signed and dated review I need to complete referencing a small press entry, notorious for difficult sourcing, not to join them? What policy is that? As for Heather O'Neil, you can search for her reviews precisely because it is a signed review, and compare it on merits to those published on more respectable urls. Best, --Mareklug talk 07:36, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined, too many issues with that site. Guy (Help!) 22:32, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Too many issues with suite101.com? Did I understand correctly? If so, how do you justify denying my request, while the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist already contains the following suite101.com items of similar content, approved by several administrators:
        1. www\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/heavy_metal\/110910 #Req by User:M3tal H3ad, appr by User:J.smith Feb 16, 2007
        2. pcs\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/interview_with_merijn_bellekom # Req by User:CyberRax, approved by User:J.smith Feb 16, 2007
        3. www\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/wisconsin\/110633 #A specific link on suite101.com, requested by me and added by me, Grandmasterka.
        4. internationaltrade\.suite101\.com\/article\.cfm\/top_cocoa_bean_processors
        5. \bafrican-american-playwrights\.suite101\.com\/article.cfm\/black_nativity_by_langston_hughes\b
        6. \bsuite101\.com\/view_image\.cfm\/198319\b
      • Thank you for you kind attention in this matter. I would like to remind you, that it is the content that I require, not turning on the spigot for all suite101.com. The review I need does not even contain any advertising. --Mareklug talk 05:45, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Mareklug, besides the massive spamming, a problem with Suite101.com and similar sites (like ezinearticles.com) is that 99% of their material is self-published by non-experts with no editorial oversight. The whitelistings I'm aware of were congruent in one way or another with the spirit of our reliable sources guideline.
    • A globally acknowledged expert published elsewhere.
    • A photograph (we assumed it wasn't Photoshopped)
    • An interview with the subject of the article in which the link was used.
    I don't know if this was true of all whitelistings but it was with the ones I was involved with.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:38, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.storz-bickel.com/

    This site deserves to be unblocked because its commonly accepted to link to the website of the company that manufactures a product that is notable, as the Volcano Vaporizer is. While I understand not wanting to unleash the floodgates of every head shop on the internet wanting to spam the Bong or Cannabis article, an exception should be made for the actual manufacturer of the product. SiberioS (talk) 10:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Recently declined here. --Herby talk thyme 10:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Is it technically feasible to unblock for one specific page?SiberioS (talk) 10:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    And may I also point out its a bit absurd to block a site on the presumption of its abuse by anonymous IP addresses in spamming, or its potential for abuse, even though it DOES have a legitimate purpose on a specific page. It would be like presuming that linking to Apple or Microsoft's websites are dangerous because they may be used to bolster or spam vast numbers of articles in order to drum sales or support. We should err on the side of allowing it. SiberioS (talk) 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't just presumed abuse - the site was abused. The IP who made the initial request for whitelisting also spammed it to a bunch of other articles on en.Wiki and others. See COIBot's report on the additions of the link before it was added to the meta blacklist. -- SiobhanHansa 00:25, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This really needs to get whitelisted! It's a totally legitimate site, especially for the Volcano Vaporizer article --Holscher (talk) 22:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Er.... no. Maybe the url for the home page, for use solely in that one article. Guy (Help!) 22:34, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    lluisllach.pl

    I want whitelisted: lluisllach.pl. Is applies to the biography of the Catalunyan singer Lluis Llach. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lluis_Llach


    It is interesting to know that Llach songs are known even in Poland, and another example (Mury) has been already approved.

    The site is indeed based on Geocities and cannot spam; anyway, the location change is possible, if it is just about that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.39.28.26 (talk) 21:38, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    tvrage.com

    It is a useful sight that has been blacklisted. It is useful to get upcoming episodes for List of Wizards of Waverly Place Episodes so it shouldn't be blacklisted. It says it is spam but it isn't. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Icealien33 (talk • contribs) 00:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunately your upload history shows you've uploaded copyrighted images, disregarding warnings. Therefore your POV about the site not being spam does not have much credibility. -- Alexf42 00:34, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.diplomaticsociety.org

    please unblock www.diplomaticsociety.org — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.112.111.238 (talk)

    Given that the link has been spammed cross wiki (report at meta)- including by several addresses in the 71.112.x.x range your request seems unlikely to be granted. Generally whitelist requests are granted for established editors who show an encyclopedic need for a link. -- SiobhanHansa 10:28, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined per above. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.worldchesslinks.net

    I have also no idea why this was blacklisted. It has an enormous amount of chess related information, useful as a reference for many chess related articles. For instance the historical chess tournaments: www.worldchesslinks.net/ezq00.html , which can be used for many articles in Category:Chess competitions (such as Vienna 1882 chess tournament). Voorlandt (talk) 16:10, 14 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squidoo.com/biomed

    Why the site should be whitelisted:
    I understand that there is likely a lot of spam from squidoo.com, however this lens (page) represents a good example of a truely informational Squidoo page with history, link lists and references. This resource listing is useful because I have not found such a comprehensive collection elsewhere on the internet. It is not filled with excessive hype or promotion. The page is titled "Biomedical Services: Maintaining essential medical equipment for hospitals & physicians" Which articles(s) would benefit from the addition of the link: This would be a helpful addtion to the "information sites"of the biomedical equipment technician page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomedical_Equipment_Technician Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added: www.squidoo.com/biomed Thank you for your consideration. Redunitone (talk) 19:05, 17 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Still an unreliable source, though, isn't it? Guy (Help!) 22:35, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.goascii.com

    Hi everyone,
    There is a global blacklisting on goascii.com because of a spam incidence.
    I think, this site could be a good extension to the Page ASCII. I develop websites and use the site very often to check charcodes. The german domain goascii.de is whitelisted on german wiki
    Could you please whitelist goascii.com locally?
    Excuse my bad english, Im active in geman wiki and wikia. View my wikimatrix at my profile.
    Best Regards --Cy (talk) 08:54, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Could somebody check it out please? Best Regards -- Cy (talk) 11:04, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    or maybe someone could serve with an short answer please. Regards --Cy (talk) 09:38, 2 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    anybody here? --Cy (talk) 09:28, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Cy, if an established, high-volume editor asks to use this domain, we'll be happy to reconsider this domain. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 14:08, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.petitiononline.com/mml3p/petition.html

    why this specific link should be whitelisted:
    first of all why is a petition site blocked, and second this link might be of intrest to fans of the game the article is about and third if the petition for a third installment is acknowledged the article would grow a lot which is good for every one.
    Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mega_Man_Legends

    • no Declined. Wikipedia is not here to attract signatories to petitions. Guy (Help!) 08:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    encyclopediadramatica.com/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About

    There is no harm in allowing a link to the about page. This is used numerous times as a reference on the Encyclopedia Dramatica article and the nowiki'd link looks ridiculous on our part. Thanks. —Giggy 10:37, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • What's wrong with using reliable independent sources? Self-sourced articles often fail WP:NPOV. I think it would be hard to find a site which is less likely to be reliable as a source about anything, even itself. Guy (Help!) 09:10, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is basically the same discussion at AN, but it isn't fair to call this a self sourced article. this is an article which, frankly, is scrupulously sourced detailing a notable subject and should be allowed to do so in the same fashion as any other article on a corporation, organization or website. The limitations imposed by WP:V are sufficient to ensure that information cited only to the subject not be used excessively. Protonk (talk) 23:54, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's currently being used to cite the launch date, a basic description of itself (quoted in ref 3), and the fact that it's trying to copy The Devil's Dictionary. I'd agree that using this to cite other things would go against NPOV, but these particular facts are hardly controversial. —Giggy 02:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, if there is a problem with the POV in an article, this is the wrong way to fix it. Blacklisting the site doesn't prevent us from citing it. It just makes wikipedia look petty. We've had enough trouble building an article about ED, let's just collectively be the bigger person and treat it like just another site. Protonk (talk) 02:51, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The site is blacklisted due to long-term abuse and that is unlikely to change (ED is of no conceivable use as a source for an encyclopaedia, after all). This is about whether one page should be whitelisted as a source for an article. I remain entirely unconvinced that the site is capable of being honest about even the most basic facts, for example I dispute absolutely their assertion that they are modelled on sites which elevate themselves above the simply childish, something ED has historically failed to do. I've checked ED articles on subjects with which I am familiar and they contain not just distortion but blatant falsehood, so like I say I would like to know if there are reliable independent sources for the same facts, because I think those would be better in respect of this particular site. I don't trust a word they say, and for good reason. Guy (Help!) 09:31, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ok, but that has nothing to do with the spam blacklist. the site is already referenced in the article, per WP:SPS. All we are asking is for the links to not be blocked by the spam filter. This isn't about our personal feelings regarding the site's reliability, devotion to truth or maturity. Protonk (talk) 15:09, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with Protonk. Guy, while I certainly respect your opinion here (and in other areas) I think it might be good if another admin without the strong feelings on the subject that you may have takes a look at this. Would you object to asking a few other regulars (Herbythyme comes to mind) to take a squiz? —Giggy 22:55, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • The opinion by Guy above this is still worded slightly antagonistically ("childish", etc.), indicating a personal dislike for the site. The About page for the site is not done "dramtically" like the other pages are; I just visited it (for the first time) and it really does do nothing other then tell about the site. If Wikipedia has an article abuot the site, it would make no sense whatsoever not to link to the site from the article. Since the home page is apparently not allowed to be linked to, this page would make a good alternative.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:05, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be totally fair to guy, I can 100% understand why he might not like the site...at all. Protonk (talk) 14:16, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have firmly shelved the fact that they reportedly assert that my recently deceased father was a paedophile, I was thinking more about the shit they published about Phaedriel. Fact is, they have sown beyond any possible doubt that they care more about "lulz" than about any pretence to accuracy, and I don't think that they are likely to be any more honest about themselves than they are about anything else. which is why I would suggest that we use only what can be verified from reliable independent sources. Guy (Help!) 19:44, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • (arbitrary indent reset)
    • Just to point out ... I checked the article, and it appears that the about page has been listed as a ref sinse mid-May sometime. It's just listed as plain-text and not linked. If it's okay to have the ref in the article, then I agree it should be whitelisted - if it's not appropriate, then the ref should be removed from the article. It may be worthwhile to open the issue for broader comment at WP:ANI. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:21, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Or an article RfC (although they have a long history of meatpuppetry so that may not work well). Guy (Help!) 20:43, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    anderszorn.org

    Hello,

    can you please whitelist this site - anderszorn.org ?

    It is a not for profit organization, the site is commercials free and took more than 6 months to develop. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.57.198 (talk) 17:10, 25 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. No credible policy-related reason given for whitelisting. Guy (Help!) 09:11, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    official artist myspace blogs

    Please unblock both

    • blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=197111722&blogID=378509344
    • blog.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=blog.view&friendID=4441967&blogID=390675704

    If both these blogs can be unblocked via friend Id that would be even better. Thanks --T-rex 14:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nefac.net

    NEFAC are a prominent anarchist organization but I cannot link to their page on Wikipedia. I do not understand this because it could not be spam or defamatory etc. Wikipedia bosses please explain why this link is banned. Thank you —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.86.172.139 (talk) 12:38, 29 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Cross-wiki spam: [2]. It's not a reliable source as far as I can see. Guy (Help!) 09:08, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    What?!! reliable sources has nothing to do with it - it's the official website of the organization and the organization is notable. The spam was by one guy on an inappropriate article (antifascism) over a year ago. Banning it is way out of proportion. If someone started putting inappropriate google.com (also "not a reliable source") links into articles, you wouldnt ban that would you. Silliness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.194.126.193 (talk) 14:57, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    It is an appropriate (and recommended) external link on the article about the organization. That page currently links to the website using the IP address which is probably not ideal for us. Recommend whitelisting home page only (or possibly nefac.net/node/83 if people think it's less likely to get spammed) for this page only and maybe having it watched by AntiSpamBot. -- SiobhanHansa 12:26, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If you scroll up a bit there is a second request for this site - does that indicate a better reason to possibly unblock it? (Personal interest irrelevant; I'm a half hippie and never heard of the organization, the site looks badly done but two people have said it really is offical site, it's in another language probably expalins why I haven't heard of it.)RayvnEQ (talk) 14:15, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    listen.to/caretaker

    To be used on Caretaker (band) This is the official band website so therefore a good reference source. Wonderfibre (talk) 18:59, 30 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined, moot. Note the redlink. Guy (Help!) 19:41, 4 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    wiki.idebate.org/index.php/Debate:Global_warming,_human-caused%3F

    This is a single use URL perhaps. Don't laugh when you read the next sentence. It is my intention to link to this idebate.org article on the debate of global warming so I can use it to debate whether a debate exists in refernce to global warming on the Talk page of Methanol economy. It is my contention that a debate exists. And it is my intention to demonstrate that a debate exists by showing a hodgepodge of sources which indicate that a debate exists... I do this by listing articles written by people debating pro and con, and I felt that this link would make my case. And yes, I am actually debating whether a debate exists, as stupid as that sounds. I am in the "yes there is a debate" crowd, obviously. And while we are debating, is there some reason why the entire domain is blocked? I like to saw logs! (talk) 06:35, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    The site was blacklisted because people working for the site spammed it across many Wikipedia articles (see WikiProject Spam report - this is an archive please do not edit).
    I see above that you mention using the link on the talk page to show that debate exists but I think you would be ultimately more successful in your argument if you could provide reliable sources that could be used in the article showing there are other opinions that should be presented according to WP:WEIGHT. idebate.org doesn't really meet our reliable sources guidelines (nor external links) except in very narrow circumstances - the fact that something is debated does not mean there is debate among experts in the field. This is basically a scientific article so scientific papers in respected journals showing an opposing point of view (or better yet reviewing other papers and concluding there is reasonable debate) would probably be best for your case. Our NPOV policy is really to only include the POVs of respected commentators, not random opinions of the general public. -- SiobhanHansa 10:53, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I do not agree with SiobahnHansa, and there is no notatation indicating she is a "promoted" user. Whether or not a debate exists in the field of "experts" is irrelevant to whether or not a debate exists. Whether or not a debate exists is actually factual information, rather then an opinon in itself, so as soon as you see one link to many people, or one link to one person (of any type) with a long, logical, etc., reason for their viewpoint, it means a debate does indeed factually exist. In the field of psychology, for example, "experts" define schizophrenia due to "symptoms", whereas in real life, people who have actually explored the schizophrenic person's mind, such as close friends, rather then "experts" who have only recorded "symptoms", are less trustworthy. In the field of computer programming, "experts" probably do not even know of the existence of LOLCode, yet an entire code was written by a "random user". So I do not think "expert" is always relevant in Wikipedia, especially on the topic of whether or not a debate exists about soemthing. In addition the reasons for blocking this site has nothing to do with the site itself, and that should be enough to automatically unblock upon request as long as sufficent time has passed where the SPAMmer is not likely to continue trying to SPAM it.RayvnEQ (talk) 13:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined The request describes use of the site as part of a novel synthesis; the source is apparently not reliable anyway, so no reason to whitelist. Guy (Help!) 21:46, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    cosmoetica.com

    Recently, Cosmoetica has been blocked. Of course, the "controversy" (no, it's not controversial, except to 2-3 people, and a bunch of bullying sockpuppets) is about Dan Schneider's site, the unjustified and transparent attempts to delete it, and the linking to relevant, oft-read reviews of books, movies, and other criticism. (For more information, see Dan Schneider's talk page) Note the sockpuppet accounts: Alabamaboy08, Ovenknob, Tmwns, and others, whose primary activity includes de-linking Schneider's site for no justifiable reason. Again: Cosmoetica and Dan Schneider have received attention from the New York Times, various online publications, Cambridge University Press, and so on, while maintaining a prolific level of quality poetry and criticism from Schneider and others, and even features the most-read Internet interview series in history, with people like Steven Pinker and poet James A. Emanuel. In all, the site has over 4 billion page reads. So, what's the fuss? The rationale for deletion, followed by relentless, one-man-army de-linking? Bekaymecca (talk) 20:22, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined, requester is yet another sockpuppet of the site owner, the total of such socks is now running at well over 20 around 40 and rising. Guy (Help!) 21:14, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    www.shooting.ho.com.ua

    The Ukrainian Shooting Federation (main page at www.shooting-ua.com) uses this domain to store some documents, including the ones linked from [3], e.g. the Ukrainian records. I tried to add these as references for List of national shooting records surpassing the world records, but apparently it's considered spam. I have no idea what kind of site ho.com.ua is, but at least an exception for the shooting subdomain sounds reasonable, no? -- Jao (talk) 19:39, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems odd but I guess the higher level domain hosting may well have had some spamming. Either way this looks valid so  Done. Cheers --Herby talk thyme 10:37, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Requests

    Official Julian Morris Facebook fan page

    I am editing the wikipedia entry of the actor/celebrity Julian Morris and would like to add a link to his official Facebook fan page which contains photos, videos and news. This is a vital link and addition to those that are interested in learning more about this actor.

    The link I am requesting to be whitelisted is:

    facebook.com/pages/Julian-Morris/6301232551 76.91.179.243 (talk) 05:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    I would love to include this link as soon as possible. Please let me know if there is any further information I can give you in order to help the process. Thanks in advance. 92.234.10.193 (talk) 23:13, 1 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Unlikely to whitelist on the request of an IP I'm afraid. Established users would be need to make such a request & even then a facebook link is unlikely. --Herby talk thyme 16:32, 6 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined per Herby and because fansites are deprecated anyway. Guy (Help!) 19:48, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you Herby and Guy for your input however I would urge you to reconsider for the following reasons:

    The fansite in question is official and endorsed by the named celebrity. As such it includes pertinent and relevant information on the person that could not otherwise be placed on his Wikipedia entry eg video interviews and copyrighted photos and literature.

    For those that are trying to learn more about this actor/celebrity this official site provides a plethora of relevant information and therefore having this access to this link is a vital resource for the Wikipedia user.Apekingdom (talk) 00:08, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined fansites are not required on an encyclopaedia generally. --Herby talk thyme 10:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.womadforum.freeforums.org

    This appears to be on the spam list for Wikipedia. The original link was incorrect, it had a .com ending - no forum exists with this url. On amending the page to the correct .org suffix I got the message that it was on the blacklist. Whereas the root domain may or may not be the originator of spam, the forum itself is not. Thank you--83.67.68.190 (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Forum links are very rarely suitable for inclusion on articles. What article do you intend to place the link on? OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:44, 18 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. --Herby talk thyme 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squidoo.com/software_ip_management

    This page at www.squidoo.com/software_ip_management documents problems and solutions related to software intellectual property management. It documents the general problem for which Black Duck software provides the leading solution. It provides links to the general issues around the problem as well as links to tool and solution providers. It also provides original content in the form of analysis and opinion. I would like it removed from the black list and put on the white list. I would like the Black Duck Software page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Duck_Software to have a link to this page hosted at www.squidoo.com/software_ip_management. This page at Squidoo has multiple links pointing back to Black Duck Software and its competitors, which you would expect of a site that lists general problems, general solutions, and the providers of specific solutions. 99.224.63.36 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. --Herby talk thyme 10:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squidoo.com/sqlitehammer

    This page at www.squidoo.com/sqlitehammer documents problems and solutions related to embedding the SQLite Database. It documents ways to use SQLite, its legal issues, and competing products and solutions. It provides links to the general issues around SQLite as well as links to tool providers. It also provides original content in the form of analysis and opinion. I would like it removed from the black list and put on the white list. I would like the SQLite page at en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SQLite to have a link to this page hosted at www.squidoo.com/sqlitehammer. This page at Squidoo has multiple links pointing back to www.sqlite.org and its competitors, which you would expect of a site that lists general problems, general solutions, and the providers of specific solutions. 99.224.63.36 (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined per Ohnoitsjamie. --Herby talk thyme 10:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    randorguy.galatta.com

    This is the only source on the web where Randor Guy's date of birth is mentioned (See: randorguy.galatta.com/myprofile.asp). Randor Guy is a famous film historian and his blogs could be used as reference in numerous articles related to Indian or international cinema -RavichandarMy coffee shop 15:11, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the only place it's mentioned then we should not be including it. Obscure information should be left out of WP:BLPs even if the only source is a good one, which in this case it is not. Guy (Help!) 16:52, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The DOB argument is now obsolete anyway. There is now one online and one offline reference in addition to the one originally requested, both added by the same editor. -- Jao (talk) 18:24, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined seems unnecessary now. --Herby talk thyme 10:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com

    This website contains books avaiable no where else. With this site being blocked, users do not have access to books related to the topic they are searching on wikipedia. One such book is a NEW BOOK on Mario Cuomo. It is only avaiable on lulu.com, but wikipedia users won't ever hear of it if it remains blocked —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.185.52.91 (talk) 12:29, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. This site would not appear to be on the blacklist at this point in time, but it is on User:XLinkBot's revertlist. You may try requesting its removal there, or create an account and the bot will stop reverting your edits after you become an established user. There are a few pages from the site that appear to have been added pre-emptively, but they currently serve (as best I can tell) no functional purpose. All the best – Ikara talk → 02:33, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, these "new books" on lulu.com are of course new self-published books, and thus extremely unlikely to be valid sources. Guy (Help!) 16:20, 27 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    -After going to the revertlist I was told it is blacklisted. The book I want to have a link to is a self-published MA Thesis written under the guidance of a Pulitzer Prize winning author. Egolembiewski (talk) 12:35, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    lulu.com is here on the blacklist (\blulu\.com\b), as it contains mainly self-published sources, and was often 'spammed' (i.e. multiple placement of links with intent to get traffic to lulu.com), &c. &c. If you have written a book/thesis, then please get an ISBN, and when you have that, use the ISBN to link to the book. Otherwise, specifically define which link, and established editors will see if the link would make an appropriate reference or external link. Hope this helps.
    hence:  Not done --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    After a quick search I did find the local blacklist which has lulu.com blacklisted. However the page is not mentioned anywhere significant here (there is one link at the bottom of the page). Shouldn't that be at the top somewhere? – Ikara talk → 15:00, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    freelancer.com.ar

    Dear wikipedia editors: may you please remove / unblock freelancer.com.ar ?(domain, not specific url) The website contains mainly photos about southamerica destinations and destination information such as history or geographical data, even when might be useful to wikipedia I ask for no inclusion at all on any pages if you don't consider it proper, only do not appear as blocked. I'd appreciate your consideration about it. Thank you very much. --Juanchetts (talk) 16:27, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    This exact domain is blocked on the Wikimedia spam blacklist, if you want it unblocked you may have better luck asking to have it removed there. You will also have a better chance of getting it white-listed if you can give specific pages on the site, and some relevant articles for which they are needed. The domain was blocked as a result of IP-based spamming, not because of content, so if a page is crucial to an article I should think it will be allowed. Good luck – Ikara talk → 01:49, 25 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined no further contributions by user. --Herby talk thyme 10:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    z10.invisionfree.com/Margo_Fans_Lazarus/index.php?act=idx

    Dear Wikipedia Editors: The above site is a fan forum for the actress Margo Harshman. I can understand if you do not want forums to be added to external links sections of Wikipedia pages, but I thought there would be no harm in asking. Therefore I am making this request, so that I may add it to the external links section of the Margo Harshman's Wikipedia page. She is an actress who has limited online fan activity and my forum is a more centralized location for her fans to be talk. I wish to add it to her Wikipedia so that other fans of hers may find out about the forum. Again, I understand if you do not wish forums to be added as links. Thank you for your time and future response and candor. --Iceblade, forum Administrator of Margo Fans Lazarus Forum 05:46, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

    no Declined Fan forums links are not required. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.sunglasses-direct.co.uk

    This site offers designer sunglasses manufactured by luxottica and offers people a chance to view and buy their products —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily2008 (talk • contribs) 13:02, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined spam and not encyclopaedic. --Herby talk thyme 13:07, 31 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The same editor went on to subsequently spam:
    It should be blacklisted also. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 04:56, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    already done. --Versageek 05:10, 9 August 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]
    If one reads to the end of Julian Dibbell's blog on the subject, one finds the reason that this request must, at this time, be denied on a technicality. Apparently Mr. Dibbell's former publisher, whilst they were empowered to do so, authorized Fourth Estate, an imprint of HarperCollins, to publish My Tiny Life in the UK and Australia. Unfortunately, this means that My Tiny Life is still technically "in print" by Fourth Estate. HarperCollins' failure to even acknowledge Mr. Dibbell's various attempts to contact them might be, and in fact is currently being, interpreted that they do NOT intend to grant him the waiver necessary to meet Wiki requirements in re to copyrights. Entirely within their rights, of course, but it seems a bit dodgy given the commercial magnitude of My Tiny Life. JimScott (talk) 22:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    P.S. to Sanxiyn: It may be out of print in the States but for those adventurous souls who would might wish to obtain a new or used printed copy, there were 23 copies listed as available on amazon.com as of this edit.
    no Declined per JimScott, thanks --Herby talk thyme 10:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    First-hand account of horse race

    Given that the page that need it is now deleted, no Declined. --Herby talk thyme 10:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    www.vuze.com/

    I am requesting whitelisting of the link for Vuze (client) and Vuze, Inc. pages since it is the official site of the client and is relevant under external links. I first requested removal from blacklist, but a admin sent me here instead to request removal for specific pages, as according to him/her, the link was spammed in other places. (sorry, didn't know where the request was supposed to be). Thank you! ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 20:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done – http://www.vuze.com/app?service=home is already on the whitelist, and is in fact already in use on Vuze, Inc. This link should be used in infoboxes and external links sections. If you want to use various other pages as references please list each one individually and explain why you need it. Thanks – Ikara talk → 02:30, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well it didn't work for me earlier when I wanted to add it (at least vuze.com), didn't know it had to be the full vuze.com/app?service/someone already whitelisted it. Thanks anyway. ηoian ‡orever ηew ‡rontiers 04:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]


    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    gargoyles.dracandros.com

    Not sure why a TV wiki is blocked. Nothing offensive I could see. --T smitts (talk) 15:29, 13 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Some aggressive adding of the link: Special:Contributions/GDarau, it may have been blacklisted for that reason, maybe specific whitelisting of specific pages on the server is the way to go? --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:33, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Nothing else heard so closed as  Stale. --Herby talk thyme 10:40, 9 August 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]
    well it still gets caught in the spam filter. --Soman (talk) 19:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you give a a link to the page concerned if this is still happening. Thanks --Herby talk thyme 12:05, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed as  Stale, nothing more heard. --Herby talk thyme 10:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


    • gazeteler.com is somehow on the spam list for wikipedia. I don't know why it is there and I don't know or care if there is an article which could link to gazeteler.com. All I know is that gazeteler.com is not a spam website and does not deserve to be listed in a spam list. Either name that section "sites we do not like" or take gazeteler.com out of that spam list. ????

    Yuwie, and any other infrequently-spammed site with legitimate usuages

    I was trying to add my Yuwie page as a way of contacing me (on user page), and I got the message back saying it is blacklisted. Many sites block this domain, and it is very annoying. Since MySpace (which I also added) was not blocked, Yuwie has no reason to be blocked. If nessecary I think you can change the block to only include the referral link, which is r.yuwie.com/username. Yuwie referral links are sometimes sent to e-mails and stuff for spammy reasons, but very infrequently. There are many legitimate usages, besides user pages, for example a link to a celebrity's page under external links, or as a reference because the blog page hosts maybe a list of links to reliable sites about a particular subject. Because of the nature of Yuwie and the fact that people want their blogs read as often as possible, and want as many people on their freindslist as possible, people often put things in their blogs such as YouTube videos (often refrenceable, such as a news story or an example of a noteable event) (YouTube videos don't always have a way to find the video on youtube.com, and not alll videos posted in Yuwie blogs actually come from YouTube), Copies of articles that are obviously written by say a newspaper or a professional (but without links in the blog, emaning the blog has to be linked), or personal opinions (example: Supporters of Barack Obama sometimes say that XXXXXXXXX [ref]ref-blog.yuwie.com/a-yuwie-blog-about-Obama-good-with-647-comments-that-agree[endref]. I believe it is unfair (not only on this site, but on all websites) that Yuwie cannot be linked to for legitimate purposes just because a few people used to SPAM it sometimes 6 months ago (happens a lot less frequently now because people have realized it isn't good money anyway, especially those who would spam). If a user is putting their referral link or SPAMming with this site, the edit they are making probably has other reasons to be deleted anyway, and the user will probably be banned etc., making blocking the site semi-unnessecary if it can also be used legitimately. I see similar requests for Squidoo above and believe it also follows the model, though Squidoo has a lot more potential then Yuwie to be used abusively because it has many more user pages that would still be blocked if they were outside Squidoo. I am not sure iof Squidoo has a specific URL either that can be blocked, as I said about Yuwie IMO it would be more prudent to block "r.yuwie.com/.....".

    Also, the phrase in the title "infrequently-spammed" is intended to mean, "SPAMmed, but infrequently," and is not intended to be sarcastic, or a similar word. To say something about sites that occassionally-but-not-usually-spammed in the title would ahve been too long, and to say "similar sites" would not have been descriptive or even universally interpreted the same way.

    Please notify me of responses to this article in whatever way will send notifications to my e-mail address or website inbox.RayvnEQ (talk) 13:03, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    I believe the notification page should be a banner at the top of the edit page, or of a manner that when we hit the "back" button, our text is still there. It may have taken a long time to write the text, especially since we have to use a strange coding mechanism which takes more time to implement then most coding systems, or it may contain writing that we would not be able to duplicate if we had to type it a second time. Just because a site is blacklisted does not mean we have made a negative contribution worthy of deletion in we have tried to use (such as in the case I just mentioned for myself of my user page), and we should be able to edit and just remove or change the link, or save our text to a notepad file for later usage if we don't want to include the edit without the link.

    When I used the "add new section" link which is not present on most pages (so, assumed it to be the right place), it put my listing all the way at the bottom instead of here where I think it is supposed to be.RayvnEQ (talk) 14:12, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    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]

    sermonaudio.com

    www.sermonaudio.com is okay. Please revert this edit and see the discussion. --71.118.38.240 (talk) 05:29, 31 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=237081407"