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 Stifle (talk | contribs) at 15:45, 14 January 2009 (→‎Expekt.com: 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|264050030#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)


    lyrikline.org

    www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=59&L=1&author=mk01&cHash=4159481764 needed for article Michael Krüger (writer) as it's the only examples of his poetry I can find online.MisarxistTM 14:21, 29 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • I think it was blacklisted for copyright violations. There is no evidence that the site has copyright release to host those poems. Does the subject not have his own website? Guy (Help!) 11:19, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    In fact it was blacklisted due to this, this and this. And might something like this be what you're looking for? MER-C 13:04, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Ha! Safe to say no Declined then. Guy (Help!) 22:29, 30 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm well aware there was a small spam campaign, hence I'm asking for an exemption for one page, which I have justified. Please agf & look at the particular issue, that someone else was spamming isn't relevant. As I said I have looked for other sources & please note also the oxford page contains only 'one' poem, hence not very useful.MisarxistTM 10:10, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The site carries no evidence of copyright release, please see Wikipedia:Copyrights#Linking to copyrighted works. Guy (Help!) 13:22, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry should have checked properly before, they do secure permissions, in much the same way as a print anthology would. See bottom of lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1 "internationally operating network committed to protecting the rights of copyright holders, and does the utmost to insure that rights are secured for all content on the website – poems, translations, audio recordings, and photographs."MisarxistTM 15:04, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    So, we have above a link to an Oxford college, but you still want to use the spammed site on the basis that they claim to try really hard not to violate copyright, even while not actually going as far as documenting the release for the specific content? Guy (Help!) 15:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    The Oxford site has half a dozen lines from one poem on it, hence not very useful. The blacklisted site states they do obtain releases, and furthermore the site is not some random personal website but is sponsored by any number of gov organisations and was was originaly linked with UNESCO, I noted on another page. The page is clearly relevant & usefull, the fact that it was 'spammed' (thought, I should note, not execesively, it was relevant to all the articles added too) should be neither here nor there. MisarxistTM 15:43, 1 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I tend to agree with Guy — WP:EL strongly discourages linking to sites with copyvios. Stifle's non-admin account (talk) 13:13, 3 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    But nothing above suggests that the site has ever had a copyvio. It was blocked for spam, not for copyvio. -- Zsero (talk) 12:41, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Zsero. de:lyrikline.org even has its own article, because once it got the grimme online award (which is famous in de). The massive link placing of this website was a problem. But even in de-wiki (there was the biggest spamming of this link) I unblocked the whole domain, after there were a few requests. There was no further spamming since.
    So I recommend whitelisting of this link despite this request was declined in autumn. -- seth (talk) 03:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    serious spamming. see Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Spam/2008_Archive_Jan_1.5#spam.lyrikline.org. Also, There is no evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimers so per WP:COPYRIGHT (external Web site appears to be carrying work in violation of the creator's copyright). Would seem there are probably other alternative sites which don't violate our linking policy?--Hu12 (talk) 22:03, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think we can safely call this no Declined. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    kerrang

    moved. original thread [1]. -- seth (talk) 23:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     hi. i've been having a similar problem with my own whitelisting request (losethegame.com/kerrang.mp3 above). the admins here seem to be misinterpreting wp:copyright. it says to avoid linking to "known" copyvios. neither the site mentioned here nor the one i want to link to have any evidence of violating copyright, so i cannot see how this can be a good reason to deny whitelisting. the site was blacklisted for some minor spam that took place in 2007 but now that there is a legitimate use. exactly the same as in this request. maybe an uninvolved admin who has some experience dealing with copyvio concerns could take a look and comment? Jessi1989 (talk) 15:31, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You were told to use the WP:OTRS project to obtain proof from Kerrang! that they've released the copyright. There is no misinterpretation here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:50, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    yes, and as i replied in the whitelisting request, i contacted the user responsible for copyrights at otrs asking how to do this and he basically told me that copyvios by other sites are not of concern to either OTRS or black/whitelisting. hence my concern that admins here are misinterpreting wp:copyrights. where does it say anything along the lines of sites not being whitelisted unless otrs proves they have copyright permission for all their content? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:52, 5 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    hi jamie, you are very quick at reverting my edits elsewhere on wikipedia, so why so slow to respond here? Jessi1989 (talk) 17:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    OTRS is commonly used for copyright permissions. It may make more sense to make the request for permission to upload the audio file to Commons. That said, we should not link to an audio broadcast without concrete proof that the copyright has been released. Period. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:55, 7 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    this is exactly what i mean about you misinterpreting things. where does it say anywhere on that page you linked to anything at all about not being able to link to sources "without concrete proof that the copyright has been released". nowhere. period. do you really think this kind of blatant deception is appropriate for an admin? Jessi1989 (talk) 16:42, 10 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    This has been  Done by Beetstra. Stifle (talk) 11:26, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    xs4all.nl/~wichm/filmsize.html

    Not really certain why this was blacklisted to begin with, but I've been using the site as a secondary reference mainly for information on list of film formats, since it actually includes pictures of some of the more obscure formats. Thanks! Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 21:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    As I've said, mainly as a secondary resource. However, this page is exceptional in that it has physical scans of obscure formats, several of which don't seem to be documented anywhere else. Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 15:49, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • You misunderstand, I think. The site is rightly blacklisted due to abuse, but we may whitelist individual links if they are of particular merit. In this case that has not been established. Guy (Help!) 13:32, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • What abuse has been evidenced? I also don't understand the concept that because it may have been inappropriately added to pages in the past that this automatically disqualifies good-faith use of the site. The RS issue may have merit, but this is not the forum for it. I am an experienced editor asking that a site be whitelisted so as to facilitate my editing work, and I have no COI. Is that not the entire point of this forum? Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to a lack of an explanation of how this link would benefit Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 14:12, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    this page is exceptional in that it has physical scans of obscure formats Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 18:00, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisting since no one seemed willing to address my responses. To return to the question - the site has physical scans of rare and obscure film formats that are poorly documented otherwise, particularly with regard to their perforation specifications. In the case of some formats, there are no comparable sources, and in particular, many of these formats have no other known graphics that I've been able to find in my research (which has been ongoing for several years now). I do not know why this site was blacklisted before, but I don't see how that is relevant to my current usage, which is as a matter of referencing. I'm trying to finish the references on the entries within list of film formats in preparation for an FLC bid. Assistance by whitelisting at least this particular page would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if any further information will be required. Many thanks, Girolamo Savonarola (talk) 08:16, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitehat.servehttp.com

    This site has really nothing to do with stuff really but i used it on some page that had to do with math bases and the site has a base calculator but its got a base converter here: /calculators/ABC.html and on some pages theres links to stuff like that on random sites. THe main reason I'm requesting this to be whitelisted is because it was blacklisted simply because its a free domain name. And remember: whitehat.servehttp.com is what i want whitelisted, NOT *.whitehat.com because im sure that people use that to spam. My main argument is that this is not a spam site Deo Favente (talk) 13:26, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There are plenty of other sites with similar calculators, many of them academic, not commercial. That domain has been problematic in the past, so I'd encourage you to explore the alternatives. Guy (Help!) 20:46, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Why was it problematic? I have never seen it used before i used it. Deo Favente (talk) 13:40, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fibre2fashion.com

    I'm interested in an interview published in this site which I would like to use in Ritu Beri. In fact the link to this interview was available in the article until 4 May 2008, when it was removed accidentally. The link is www.fibre2fashion.com/face2face/ritu-beri-design/ritu-beri-fashion-designer.asp Jay (talk) 13:08, 9 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    moneyweek.com

    The largest financial magazine in the UK. Please see comments on MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#moneyweek.com

    (articles I've edited where the links are valid)

    (other articles where the link is valid - I don't have time to examine all 61 articles with MoneyWeek links)

    For the record I have no connection with Agora or any subsidiaries such as MoneyWeek other than respect for some of their writers. Thanks -- John (Daytona2 · Talk · Contribs) 11:12, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • There is, however, no dispute that Agora were spamming. So: please list links you would like whitelisted. We do not whitelist entire domains, that is not how it works. Guy (Help!) 21:51, 10 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Per Daytona2's request here;
    • http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/imaginary-profits-dry-up-14251.aspx
    • http://www.moneyweek.com/file/229/merryn-somerset-webb-.html
    • http://www.moneyweek.com/file/19277/how-anthony-bolton-finds-winners.html
    Three Urls,  Done. De-listing the entire domain is no Declined, at this time.--Hu12 (talk) 00:13, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    tinyurl.com

    The article is "Pitmilly" that I am trying to upload to Inver471ness sandbox. However, I have ben unable to save the article because of this blacklisting. I believe that this site should be whitelisted because it is a very useful method of condensing long URLs to shorter, more manageable ones. I use it all the time outside Wikipedia and have found it very useful. While I want to use it in my article, I believe that others in Wikipedia would also find it very useful.Inver471ness (talk) 01:32, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined -- while it is indeed handy, it can also be used to bypass spam blacklisting. --Versageek 01:54, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree. Just cite the target URL directly. Stifle (talk) 11:20, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    hitlerbunker.com

    Dear Administrators,
    my website "www.hitlerbunker.com" has been blocked by the anti-spam filter end put in your blacklist. This site is present since few years in Wikipedia and I can assure that its beaviour has been always correct and respecful of your rules.
    I think that the putting it in the blacklist has been given by a banal error made in the digit of it. I explain the fact: the website refers to my book "Fuehrerbunker-Discovered its Mysteries". At the aim to digit the "ue" I went at the search of the German "u" with the (..) over the "u" (umlaut); having not found it I preferred to do "copy/past" from another url present in the same page.
    All is here: I did not think that such "copy/past" operation could be interpreted as a violation to the Wikipedia regulation.
    For this reason and seen the banality of the violation I ask you that my website "www.hitlerbunker.com" be whitelisted (unblocked).
    Thanks for your indulgence.
    GUIDO Pietro
    for e-mail address and phone number see history
    —Preceding unsigned comment added by Musaca (talk • contribs) 17:02, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    As you can see here there was a lot of spamming done with this link. The users who added the link did not use the talk pages but waged edit wars. The blacklist seemed to be the only way to stop them.
    Your domain is not helpful in the sense of WP:EL (or de:WP:WEB and so on). There is no information on the subject "Fuehrerbunker". It seems to exist only to sell a book, see WP:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided #5. So I don't see why it should be whitelisted. -- seth (talk) 22:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done per Seth. Delisting may be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 11:21, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    associatedcontent.com/

    I was trying to cite an edit to Grey's Anatomy that I was making, but it turns out that this url (http://www.----.com/article/508691/talking_to_greys_anatomy_writer_shonda.html?page=2 replace ---- with associatedcontent) is getting blacklisted. This site appears to be an innocent news website, why it is blacklisted I do not understand. Thegreyanomaly (talk) 05:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Associatedcontent.com is not generally a reliable source, please see [2]. Unless there's something special about this particular article which you can add, this is no Declined. Stifle (talk) 11:23, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    brugo.be

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

    Dear Administrators,

    For some unknown reason links to this website have been removed over and over again. This website contains valuable information regarding the study of Joseki (opening strategies of an asian boardgame). The mentioned website is (relatively new but) one of the biggest and highest quality pages available on the internet regarding this topic.

    Further more it has over 10,000 visitors. Of which 30% are returning visitors. These are clearly not the characteristics of spam. It can only be a mistake or personal rage that this website ended up in the blacklist. It was only mentioned on 3 pages. There surely were some other hyperlinks on these pages that were far less related than this website which is entirely devoted to the subject.

    On top of that the website is a free non-commercial one. Clearly not spam. I hope this can be resolved quickly.

    You can also email me at webmaster at brugo dot be —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.220.2 (talk) 23:45, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined We rarely whitelist (or unblacklist) at the request of the site owner. Self-published works are rarely considered to be reliable sources, and as such, Wikipedia has no use for the link. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:55, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Reply —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.183.12 (talk) 09:00, 13 January 2009 (UTC) Well I can understand your reasoning from a certain point of view. On the other hand there's a couple of things totally wrong about this reasoning as well:[reply]

    1. So, here I am trying very hard to convince you my website is clean. The person who blacklisted it, did it with 1 click not giving any explanations. Why do I have to prove I'm innocent when I'm not even charged for anything.
    2. To be honest, I would be a pretty bad webmaster if I would NOT respond to this terrible situation. Getting a website to be "whitelisted" is so hard that you can't honestly expect one of my daily visitors to come here and clear this mess for me, can you? No kidding, I've been looking for more than a week just to find THIS page! It's a maze.
    3. I have a big audiance in a small world. There's probably not much more than 10,000 players in europe who play this game. This isn't really like you banned www.ebay.com .

    Honestly, let's get to the point. What will convince you to whitelist my website ?

    • A certain highplaced person should post a message here? Like for instance, board of directors of a national federation? - Can be arranged in no time
    • Or do you just want huge quantities of visitors to put messages here? - Shouldn't be a problem
    • Anything you want, just name it and let's get this thing over with please.

    Some references: Maybe this can convince you. My website is mentioned indirectly by one of the other mentioned webpages. It's mentioned on the main Joseki page (same page, a more specific wiki) of the biggest Go wiki site. And on top that exact page is mentioned here on wikipedia as well. If you trust them, and they trust me... then wouldn't it make sense you trust me as well?

    Another prove. My website is mentioned on the following Go Federation websites:

    Thank you in advance and thank you for your reply. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.220.2 (talk) 01:25, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Nothing here explains how the link would be useful to Wikipedia, rather than to your site. Whitelisting of a specific page from the site may be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Of course it would be useful for my website. I received about half of my visitors via wikipedia. And most of them are recurring visitors. But that is mainly because I have a lot of information which is not available on wikipedia. Such as a couple of 1000 diagrams of sequences, which in essence each deserve a page on wikipedia. That's why it is useful to Wikipedia. You know what really starts to bother me is, there are 2 other links on that page, and my website has like 100 times more information than those sites. Why isn't mine referenced, but are those ? I have MORE content and BETTER quality. What's the problem? You can't say my page is useless to wikipedia. - Is finally something going to happen here? I still haven't heard a single reason why my site got removed. If my site is removed then at least I demand all other references are removed as well, since they are worse and offer less. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.136.183.12 (talk) 13:43, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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 encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your sites links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered at that time. Per OhNoitsJamie and Stifle this is closed as no Declined.
    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.

    What is a high-volume? Will 50 messages of 50 different editors be enough? I propose we let them post their messages here. Agreed?

    Petition: —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.213.21 (talk) 23:11, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Bram Vdb - KGS 1 dan.
    2. Joke R - KGS 4 kyu. (brugo offers so much information that other sites dont, it deserves to be a reliable source of information if not already) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.241.223.4 (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It does not matter how many different unregistered editors post here. If one person with a Wikipedia account who has edited for a reasonable amount of time and made a reasonable number of edits requests the whitelisting for a reasonable reason, then it will be considered. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Expekt.com

    expekt.com/pagecontent/pagecontent.jsp?pageid=10508 - Tried to use the link to reference Glenn Strömberg's nickname "The Marathon Man" and haven't been able to find a different source to cite. (First time for me to request a thing like this, hope this follows the procedure) — CHANDLER#10 — 19:10, 13 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 15:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    Suite101.com

    Granted, specific articles by its writers may be unsourced (although standards are improving), but I'm trying to write an article about the company itself and I'm stuck on the fact that I can't include a link in the infobox.--otherlleft (talk) 16:21, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Is there an index.html which is whitelistable? Whitelisting the whole domain will result in the old problems. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:29, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I will find out.--otherlleft (talk) 14:38, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    How about http://www.suite101.com/about/ ?--otherlleft (talk) 14:41, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Stifle (talk) 14:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still getting the spam warning when I try to use this link. Is there a specific template or format I need to use?--otherlleft (talk) 11:02, 20 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Can someone who doesn't suck at regexen please see if there's anything that can be done about this? Stifle (talk) 14:03, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Should be fixed now. -- seth (talk) 02:54, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    broken-links.com

    Other than the name suggests the site is a sincere blog about web typography (there seems to be some kind of irony in the name...). --Bernd-vdb (talk) 12:59, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blogs are not usually considered reliable sources. What is the context here? I can't find it on the blacklists either. Guy (Help!) 13:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I tried to set a link to http://www.broken-links.com/2008/03/18/safari-31-introduces-web-fonts-for-all/ - and get a message "The following link has triggered our spam protection filter: http://www.broken-links..." - try it out (had to shorten the example, otherwise WP wouldn't save the text). Whether it is a reliable source is not the question, only if it should be blacklisted. --Bernd-vdb (talk) 22:25, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      I can't find that on our spam blacklists. Stifle (talk) 14:19, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      \blinks\.com\b is blocked, so "broken-links.com" is matched. You can use the tool [3] to find regexp entries. -- seth (talk) 02:59, 29 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      OK,  Done. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Requests

    americanhistory.suite101.com (or at least americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/oscar_wildes_foray_into_civil_rights )

    I am not sure why this is blocked because it is an educational article about Oscar Wilde americanhistory.suite101.com/article.cfm/oscar_wildes_foray_into_civil_rights) and not at all shocking. I notice another suite101.com request on here. I do not know if the whole americanhistory needs to be ublocked but this one story would be nice, thanks. Comradepuma (talk) 12:51, 11 October 2008 (UTC) CP[reply]

    Suite101.com is blocked due to spamming; as it is a free magazine-hosting site, it is not generally a reliable source. Can you explain what you want to do with this URL and, if you are citing it, how it is a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 09:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 14:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    uofa.edu

    Hi, I am not sure why our university website url is blocked but could somoene please take it off the black list? University of Atlanta (uofa.edu) is an online unversity catering to global student population. It offers wide array of online degree programs and would serve as an excellent resource for the greater online community looking for accredited online institution. Thank you 12.22.184.3 (talk) 23:07, 16 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Amithani (talk • contribs) 22:29, 16 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Whitelisting might be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 14:16, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    [4] has details on why this was blacklisted. Stifle (talk) 14:18, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks. So who is that established editor. Please give me some details? As I said, we're an accredited online university, not spammers. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.22.184.3 (talk) 17:50, 19 December 2008 (UTC) Twigly jamba (talk) 03:14, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    An established editor is anyone who has been on Wikipedia for a month or two and has edited a reasonable variety of pages. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    urbandub.freeforums.org

    please remove this link to black listed. I'm going to add this link to the article about Urbandub here on Wikipedia. The site is a forum for Urbandub and supporters of the band. Thanks.

     Not done; this may be considered for whitelisting on the application of an established editor, ideally with an explanation of how Wikipedia (and not the website) would benefit from the addition. Stifle (talk) 11:32, 20 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    blogs.squidoo.com and squidoo.com

    I'm rewriting the Squidoo page, and Squidoo's companion blog "Squidblog" provides valuable information to the page's history section. These are the three sources I want to include:

    - blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2005/10/07/squidoo-is-about-communicating-meaning/ This is when the site was announced.

    - blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2005/12/08/its-ready/ This is when the site released beta testing details.

    - blogs.squidoo.com/squidblog/2007/03/15/ps-and-the-lucky-lensmaster-was/ This is when the site reached 100,000 pages.

    Also, on a similar note, the squidoo.com domain is blacklisted. I want to use this page to source details on Squidoo's charity contributions: squidoo.com/squidoo-charity-giveaway

    Thanks. Svernon19 (talk) 05:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Blogs are not reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 14:14, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    http://germany-travel-dot-suite101-dot-com/article.cfm/trier_and_the_porta_nigra

    I don't care much for the domain (suite 101.com), but the specific article on the Porta Nigra is quite an accurate description in English and hence a useful English Source for Porta Nigra that is available online. Is it possible to exempt just that article? Oh and other articles that might benefit from it are anything related to Roman architecture/culture/civilization in Germany/northern Europe. --Kmhkmh (talk) 10:38, 10 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to have linked it very successfully in the title of this section. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
     Stale Stifle (talk) 14:58, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    Well though the link was displayed in the topic, the spam filter is still complaining, meaning i can't use the url. Btw what doe "Stale" mean here? --Kmhkmh (talk) 00:30, 30 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    You could link it in the reference the same way as you linked it in the header.
    A request is closed as stale if the requester doesn't reply to a query or issue after a reasonable time. Stifle (talk) 13:59, 17 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)


    Troubleshooting and problems


    My URL is blocked - why I am not allowed to repair my fault?

    On 20 Dec my URL was blocked and all links to it were deleted. I made the fault that I added too many links to my own website. I did not know that that is not allowed. I proposed to delete my links myself but I cannot do it because there are no links anymore, logic. I run a non-commercial, educational website: realgems.org (I cannot write the complete URL because it is blocked). I never wanted to spam Wikipedia: Since JULY 08 I added links to my special pages without problem. No deletion, nothing. Now, on 20th Dec, all links were blocked. Reason: spamming. I wrote to someone from Wikipedia who is (perhaps besides others) responsible for this blockade. Finally he told me that he doesn't know how to help me. Then I wrote to a Wiki admin who added a lot of links to other websites, as I did. These links were not regarded as spam, surely because these sites are not his sites. No problem for me but he suddenly cancelled the talk. Now I don't know how to proceed now. I even offered him to become a Wiki member, re additions to various pages ("projects"). No chance. Another problem is that many of my visitors have added links to my site on various Wiki pages, from America to Asia. Their links were also deleted. I find that not very adequate because a lot of the international public (of Wikipedia) seems to be interested in my website, and I made just the fault to add too many links to my own site. Please help me so that at least their links will be re-installed. Then, as I proposed, I will become a valued Wiki supporter / editor. Is that a fair proposal? I think so.

    Kind regards, Redberyl Redberyl (talk) 20:19, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 

       The URL isn't blocked directly on Wikipedia, it's blacklisted at m:Spam blacklist, which is a central blacklist used by all Mediawiki projects (which Wikipedia is just one of many). The discussion and justification for this is documented at m:Talk:Spam_blacklist#realgems.org. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:29, 28 December 2008 (UTC)

    Dear Barek, thanks for your quick response. But what shall I conclude from your message? What can I do? What can you do so that a well-respected website can be reached also on Wikipedia again? Redberyl (talk) 20:36, 28 December 2008 (UTC) 

       As it's not blacklisted here, the only way to remove the blacklist would be to address the issue at m:Talk:Spam blacklist#Proposed removals; the only thing that could be done directly at Wikipedia would be to request whitelisting on this specific project at MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist#Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites_to_unblock). However, I should mention that in both cases, requests by site owners are rarely granted without support from established editors. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 20:46, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


    Dear Barek, I'm very thankful for your supportive messages. O.K. I will try to put my humble request on the Wiki pages you mentioned.

    Btw I cannot send an email to your address. They came back as undeliverable.

    dzinkuije, Mike —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs) 21:13, 28 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redberyl (talk • contribs)

    Discussion

    This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 25 September 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=264050030"