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 Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 16:10, 26 February 2009 (→‎lyrikline.org page for Chirikure Chirikure: testing). 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|273441342#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)






    mohanpai. sulekha. com

    I ran into a blacklisted link to a beautifull article by Mohan Pai with provides a lot of the more fundamental information of a section in Nilgiris (mountains). This information can not be found elsewhere. Request to unblock http:// mohanpai. sulekha .com/blog/post/2009/01/the-western-ghats-by-mohan-pai-hill-stations.htm Debresser (talk) 22:09, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. Can you explain why this is different? Stifle (talk) 13:03, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are right. But that has nothing to do with blacklisting. And this article is very good, blog or no. Debresser (talk) 18:22, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle is right. Blogs are not reliable sources and can't be used, unless in some rare cases. I suggest you check verifiability, no original research, neutral point of view, and reliable sources. --Kanonkas :  Talk  19:26, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Many blogs are very good and may be used. They are not the most reliable sources, but they are not forbidden. Check yourself. Debresser (talk) 07:02, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    From my talk page.

    Don't think I was being too serious in calling anybody a "snob". That's why I said it only in the edit summary. To let show that they don't have to be holier than the pope. A blog is not a forbidden source. I quote "Self-published sources may be used only in limited circumstances, with caution". In the case of that link listed as spam, it's a very informative site and a shame to wave it away by saying "blog, blog". No offense intended.

    Debresser (talk) 16:34, 15 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Administrators...? Debresser (talk) 10:18, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Debresser, a suggestion. I'm working on overall blacklisting and whitelisting procedures, and consider refusal of whitelisting to enforce rigid interpretations of WP:RS as problematic; as you know, links are not only used for RS references and may be appropriate under some circumstances even if biased, self-published, etc. If you want a whitelisting soon, make a specific edit to an article, using the link with nowiki tags surrounding it, or without the http://. (The blacklist only affects actual links.) You might consider, then, reverting yourself, as well as discussing it on the Talk page of the article, explain what you are doing, that the site is blacklisted, etc. Then provide a diff to the edit here, so that your exact proposal can be seen in context. At least, then, if the request is still denied, you have something clear to appeal through WP:DR. --Abd (talk) 15:40, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, Abd. I didn't really understand you. But I do have a diff where I reverted myself here, and the edit summary mentions blacklisting. Does this help? Debresser (talk) 19:57, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand him perfectly. Unfortunately this is a red herring. Abd has misread a couple of situations and embarked on an unfortunate crusade. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reverted the edit, Debresser, the reference as it was, was already OK, in the new form it 'broke' the reference to something unreadable. What Stifle and Kanonkas mean above is, can you explain why the information that is provided on this blog is 'true', 'verifyable'? You are all right that blogs are sometimes suitable as reliable sources, but there (apparently) have been problems with other blogs on this site.

    None of us here wants to imply, or suggest that the information on this specific page is not reliable, it is just that you are the best to person to tell us why this information is considered reliable. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I really do not understand the question. I have allready expressed my opinion about this link. Do you want me to go into details? Is that what is needed here? If that is so, than even more so do I not uderstand you. You have the information in the article, you have the information in the link. You don't need me to explain to you that the information in the link is what is in the article. And you have the article to see for yourself how important this information is to it. So what is it you want from me? All I want is to whiten a perfectly good and valuable link. If fell like "guilty till proven innocent". Which in a way is true, because the link is blacklisted. But I don't have to fight for it. All is there for you to see. I allready made clear what should be done. Debresser (talk) 12:52, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What we mean, Debresser, is if the information on the blog is reliable, true. I can write a blog entry, filled with complete rubbish. I can't decide on the information contained in this blog if it is true, or rubbish. Of course it fits with what you say in the document (you use it as a source), and of course it is then imporant for it, but if the content of the blog is untrue, unverifyable, then the blog is unsuitable as a ref, and the content in the wikidocument is probably also not true. So the question is 'why do you think that the information in the blog is reliable?' I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 22:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    At last somebody to speak clear Dutch (ik bedoel Engels). This author has published a book, which is part of the Delhi Public Library, see Delhi Public Library - Books Received Under the Provision of D.B.Act. in the month of September-2006, number 168. The blog has the same title, and may safely be presumed to be closely connected to this book. As the book is part of an established public library, it would be safe to consider it a reliable source. Debresser (talk) 01:14, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (1) A book being in a library catalog doesn't automatically make it a reliable source. (2) I can create a blog with the same title as a book; that doesn't make it a reliable source. The exception would be if there is evidence that the blog is written by or officially sanctioned by the author, in which case it may be a reliable source for related material. OhNoitsJamie Talk 01:26, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If you want to suggest that the blog is not the authors you are out of your mind, that is, you have a serious case of being paranoid. And I have had it with admins that deliberately choose to obstruct the free flow of good and legal information for the only purpose of showing me that they not only do not understand the spirit of the Wikipedia guidelines involved but not even their letter. Don't want to whitelist the link, don't. Want to, do it and fix it in the article. I thank you beforehand for being so much smarter than the other admins before you. Debresser (talk) 09:17, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't think anyone is suggesting that. The issue is WP:SELFPUB. Not even the massive amount of advertising on that page figures here, just the fact that it's a blog so not a reliable source. If the facts are in the book then simply cite the book, that's certainly permissible. Once a site has been abused we need a really good reason to override the blacklist for any link, as I'm sure you understand, and that must start by verifying that the link meets policy. Here, you have been informed by several long-standing contributors that it does not appear to meet the relevant guidelines. Sure, it's a bit of a catch-22 - if the information is not available elsewhere then is it verifiable and significant; if it is available elsewhere then cite the elsewhere. But actually that's not a bad rule of thumb: anything which is available only form a single blog, is probably not something we should be including at all, and anything that is available either from a blog or from a print published source should almost always be cited to the print published source due to the transient nature of blogs. Guy (Help!) 22:44, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I understand you. The blog is a lot more readily available than the book, obviously, and I do not own the book to be able to say whether perhaps the blog contains more information than the book, or to at least add references to the book in stead of those to the blog.

    I do not understand why sites are blacklisted at all, which may be part of the reason I do not understand the great reluctance of admins to unblock a site upon request. Debresser (talk) 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Closing as no Declined. Stifle (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    holocaustresearchproject.org/trials/konradmorgen.html

    I would like to requeat that the above link be white-listed, because it contains information relating to Georg Konrad Morgen. I was not aware of Wikipedia's "blacklisting" policy until I attempted to add the aforementioned link as a source for Morgen's attendance at the Hague Academy of International Law, specifically on the List of Hague Academy of International Law people page. I have tried to find another website with the needed information, but I could only find Wikipedia sites and others which "mirror" its content. --TommyBoy (talk) 02:45, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The issue here is that there are two competing claims to ownership of te content of that site, much of which is editorialised anyway, and they brought their fight here. I am sure you can find a better source, perhaps the source they themselves cite. A link is not necessary, just a citation to a reliable source (which that site is not, according to the comments we have form the competing webmasters). Guy (Help!) 22:37, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The H.E.A.R.T Website is well respected, it is quoted frequently by the BBC, CBS news, was a source of information and research for the film Defiance, it is listed on the USHMM top Holocaust related websites etc etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.243.68.248 (talk) 04:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    lyrikline.org page for Chirikure Chirikure

    www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=60&L=1&author=cc00&cHash=efa2be756d

    This is a link to the page at Lyrikline.org for the Shona poet Chirikure Chirikure, which I would consider an outstanding enhancement, as an External Link, to our article on the poet. From prior lyrikline discussions, I can anticipate the following objections:

    • Lyrikline was linkspammed. There is no question but that a single editor added large numbers of links, cross-wiki, thus reasonably resulting in a global blacklisting; however, this is not relevant to a local whitelisting request, which should only consider whether or not the specific proposed usage is appropriate here.
    • Lyrikline hosts copyright violations. The poems I've seen have copyright notices, including the page requested for whitelisting, material was contributed by the authors, etc. Given the notability and visibility of Lyrikline.org, and its governmental and other institutional support, that they would be hosting copyright violations seems quite unlikely. WP:COPYLINK states that if you know that an external Web site is carrying a work in violation of the creator's copyright, do not link to that copy of the work. There is no reason to suspect that this page contains copyright violating material, much less to know that.
    • Wikipedia is not a linkfarm. There are no other external links in this article, and I doubt that a better one is likely to be found, and even if it were, that would make two good links, not a linkfarm. WP:ELYES encourages appropriate external links where they enhance articles, and this lyrikline page meets this standard, with its audio of the poets reading their own poetry, text of poems and translations, plus their additional material on the poets (and we might bring some of that material here, I'd consider Lyrikline.org a reliable source).

    Personal note: I recommend the poem Hakurarwi. Thanks. --Abd (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I would suggest to bring Lyrikline.org to an appropriate wikiproject (I know that Abd already did this), and if they consider the link useful to whitelist the whole domain for use on en (like has been done on de.wikipedia), then that is the way forward. The site contains proper information, mostly available in English, and is suitable both as a reference, or in other cases, as an external link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:01, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks. Because the projects are asleep, I'm asking for this one whitelisting as a toe in the water. If an admin does decide to whitelist the whole site here (and I'd agree that this is appropriate for the reasons Beetstra stated), then I'd agree to watch for abusive links. Whitelisting the whole site will be much more efficient, because there are hundreds of potential usages here, see User:Abd/Lyrikline poets. --Abd (talk) 13:54, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • And where's the documentary evidence of copyright release and compliance again? Guy (Help!) 22:32, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Where is the requirement of such? Policy? Guideline? I've looked. See the copyright argument above. Then, first of all, the site hosts poetry audio files read by the author, specifically contributed by the author. Look at the poem Hakurarwi, as an example.
    www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=162&L=1&author=cc00&show=Poems&poemId=3122&cHash=d6d6fd3645
    Copyright notice is shown and audio production shown. The author contributed the material. "Literaturwerkstatt Berlin" started up Lyrikline. Note that if Lyrikline.org is hosting substantial copyvio, we are violating copyvio policy by linking to such a site in the article, so you could take this up with Hu12, who whitelisted that, or with de.wikipedia, which has many links to lyrikline.org pages, or with Beetstra who is suggesting whitelisting the whole site here. It would certainly simplify things.
    The following legal statement is at lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1
    Both the content and structure of lyrikline.org are copyright protected; all rights reserved. The duplication, distribution, and republication of all content and structural elements – in particular texts, parts of texts, audio or video material, graphics, or design elements – is prohibited if copyright-protected under German copyright law. This is particularly true for using material from lyrikline.org on other private websites.
    lyrikline.org is an 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. But because of the differing legal situations from country to country, mistakes in attributing rights can take place, despite intense research. We apologize for any such omission; please inform us if you become aware of such an error.
    Are you suggesting, JzG, that the winner of the 2005 Grimme Online Award (the same Institute that gives the Adolf Grimme Awards for TV), supported by governmental agencies and the Goethe Institute, and highly visible, is hosting massive copyvio, and that the possibility that some error has occurred somewhere should prevent us from linking to the site? Are you suggesting that they would not immediately remove violating material if it came to their attention?
    The way I read our guidelines and copyright law and precedent, we may not link to a site which is known to be violating copyright, and the existence of possible isolated violations doesn't count. (No such specific violations have been asserted.) Somehow this has gotten converted, in the minds of a few, to a prohibition against linking to sites where there isn't proof that they are not violating copyright, and, in fact, such proof is probably impossible without massive research and legal opinion. No, JzG, the presumption, rebuttable, is that there is no violation. You have raised this issue before with another blacklisting, and it was considered irrelevant there as well. Please don't raise this red herring again, unless you have some actual proof. --Abd (talk) 02:18, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Abd, I do think that it is a proper question. The site was abused, and the question was raised if the site does have the right to publish this copyrighted information. If then the site needs to be whitelisted, while that copyright question is still there, then the check is totally appropriate, and if that part of the question can't be properly answered, I would be reluctant. However, you have shown that the site has been allowed to publish the material, and I do believe that this site does try to be in line with the law, hence I don't think that that is resolved here. Any answer on one of the Poets/Literature projects/portals? Or is it an idea to poke some specialists in this field directly? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:04, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk, thanks. The question would be proper if it hadn't been raised before by JzG, who has repeatedly asserted that some kind of proof is required of copyright compliance, when this is not at all reflected in the guidelines, actually libelously asserting copyright violation without any evidence of that other than his own unsupported opinion. However, I don't mind citing the evidence. Now, as to the requests for comment. No, no response from any place where the issue has been raised, here. Normally, I should be able to insert a reasonable link without such extensive effort to gain community comment. Nobody has claimed that this specific link is actually inappropriate here. Specialists in the field? What field? What is the question that would be asked? I see no reason for continued blocking of lyrikline.org on en.wikipedia, so whitelisting the domain is requested, which, of course, does not give me permission to massively insert links, that's a separate issue. If any admin is not willing to whitelist the whole domain, though I can't fathom why that would be, given what has been shown, then the specific link requested should be whitelisted. It's been six days. If admins here are too busy, I can go to Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard and recruit one.
    If I'm correct, the line to be added to the whitelist for the whole site would be:
    \blyrikline\.org\b
    and the line for the specific link would be:
    lyrikline\.org/index\.php\?id=60&L=1&author=cc00&cHash=efa2be756d
    and a log entry would be needed at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Log. If there isn't answer here, I'll check this elsewhere before asking an admin to screw up the whitelist. Regex. Too bad we don't have an adequate explanation of how to use it. I've looked. --Abd (talk) 15:55, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Regexps can't be learned in just a few hours, see e.g. perldoc perlre. Therefore guys like Dirk and me exist. I corrected your proposed regexps. Whitelisting itself does not cost much time. Discussions and verifications cost time. -- seth (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2009 (UTC) [reply]
    Thanks, Seth. --Abd (talk) 01:03, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Per the above findings, I'd agree that the copyright status of Lyrikline is OK. At the risk of some repetition, here is what I found:
    • The Goethe Institute is an arm of the German government. As they say on their web site, The Goethe-Institut is the Federal Republic of Germany’s cultural institution operational worldwide. (found on http://www.goethe.de/uun/enindex.htm)
    • This very arm of the government has an article on their website, Lyrikline Gives Contemporary Poetry a Multilingual Internet Platform, in which they describe in positive terms what Lyrikline is up to. (http://www.goethe.de/kue/lit/thm/sli/en155415.htm)
    • On Lyrikline's web site, they assert: lyrikline.org is an 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. (www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=63&L=1)
    • Given that the copyright situation looks OK, I wonder what the spam situation is. It would be OK to whitelist all of lyrikline.org, in my opinion, if it doesn't open the spam floodgates again. EdJohnston (talk) 02:11, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've been working on a history of the lyrikline blacklisting. As near as I can tell, the editor who was allegedly linkspamming stopped all addition of links prior to the blacklisting. He was actually removing links on the day of the blacklisting. See the report at User:Abd/Blacklist/lyrikline.org. Beetstra has been helping some with this report. He has argued for the continued blacklisting of lyrikline.org at meta, because the user had added links to allegedly inappropriate language 'pedias. However, to me, this is somewhat doubtful. The original blacklisting was requested by en.wikipedia User:MER-C apparently based on RC patrol here, with a followup block by User:Hu12 and the deletion of the article on Lyrikline.org. It appears that Hu12 assumed that the user name Lyriker showed COI with Lyrikline.org. That was the block reason. It doesn't. Lyriker means "poet," and it isn't surprising that someone interested in poetry, as contribution history of the user's IP on de.wikipedia shows, would be interested in linking to lyrikline.org, which is an excellent resource. None of the links added here, as far as I've seen, were inappropriate, and reading the record of what happened to User:Lyriker practically breaks my heart. Read his appeal to Hu12, quoted on the history page of mine. Lyrikline has been, since about May of last year, whitelisted in toto on de.wikipedia, and they have seen, according to User:Lustiger seth, who is admin there as well as here, no linkspamming. See also the list of poets at User:Abd/Lyrikline poets, it's over 600 names. Many of these poets have articles here already and could use a link; my plan has been to gradually request whitelisting for one or a few at a time, as reasonable candidates are identified, until or unless the site is whitelisted totally, in which case I'd attempt to find consensus for massive addition. While it's possible there are articles on poets where lyrikline linking would not be appropriate, I haven't seen one of these yet. Further, I'd consider lyrikline.org a reliable source for biographical and other information about hosted poets, hence it is possible that we may get as many as a few hundred new articles out of this. But don't fear, I'm not going to fire up a bot and start cranking out the links, unless there is clear consensus. Really, today, I'm looking for Chirikure Chirikure, where I've asked just about everywhere I could think of without finding any objections except the spurious copyright issue. --Abd (talk) 04:46, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Now that I've looked at the original spam report, I would not support whitelisting lyrikline.org for all of the English Wikipedia. I could see allowing it just for Chirikure Chirikure. I'd need to see a detailed plan before extending it any farther than that. I believe that the block of User:Lyriker was justified. EdJohnston (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Grounds for the block, Ed? Detailed plan? The plan is to whitelist links, one or a few at a time; the plan is to suggest doing what de.wikipedia did. Watch for abuse and deal with it. The plan is to follow blacklisting guidelines and block policy and not to allow the WP:BATTLE against spam to take over the project. --Abd (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    However, we are talking about an external link here. If it was a reference, then there would be a 'hurry' for the reference (as it might leave verifyable material in the document unsourced!). As an external link it does/might add to the page (though there may be other sites/links as well which do the same), but it is not like the wikipedia page is significantly less worth without an external link .. and based on the latter I would even decline this specific whitelisting .... and I believe that there is absolutely no proof that 'spamming will stop after whitelisting' (though maybe XLinkBot can take care of that here on en). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:21, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk, "spamming" stopped before blacklisting. If this particular link is whitelisted, what, is someone going to add a link to George W. Bush? Come to think of it.... seriously, I've written that this is a poster child for problem blacklisting. I think there is no justification for global blacklisting, but it is arguable, so far. Nevertheless if this specific link isn't to be whitelisted, the whole process I've been following for trying to gather consensus, including respecting fully and carefully the needs of blacklist volunteers, gets escalated under DR. I said I'd wait for an answer here. The wait expires today. I really have no idea if it is better, overall, if it is accepted or denied. --Abd (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is, per quite some editors in the discussion, enough reason for global blacklisting, for the block, and the editor was warned sufficiently (multiple wikis, including the Captcha, I just tested it on en, saying "For information on our standards for adding links, please see our External links Guideline."). The more I look at it, I really want the input from a project/portal, if they say it is appropriate and useful for our wiki, then we can whitelist, and keep an eye on the floodgates. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined as we do not link to copyvios. If that particular item is not a copyvio, please put the content on Wikisource and link to it there. Stifle (talk) 17:10, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the result, Stifle, but there is a problem with it. There is discussion above about copyvio, with an obvious and supported conclusion that there is no copyvio. Taking the content to Wikisource, however, would be copyvio. It's copyrighted content, and if you'd read the evidence above, you'd know that. In addition, I requested review of this at AN (yesterday), as I said I would, in the hope of finding a neutral admin to close this. Accordingly, I'm asking you to strike your close as without foundation. I'll copy your comment to the AN report. --Abd (talk) 19:41, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The request is here for www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=60&L=1&author=cc00&cHash=efa2be756d .. I do disagree (slightly) with this link, I believe that www.lyrikline.org/index.php?id=162&L=1&author=cc00&show=Bio&cHash=636455a509 gives just a bit extra. However, looking at the system, the link is 'lyrikline.org/index.php, followed by id= a number, and L=1 .. language "1" are the pages that are available in en. As copyright is not a problem, I am going to whitelist \blyrikline\.org\/index\.php\?id=\d+\&L=1\& .. that allows for all artists that have an English language page to be linked. I suggest then to follow this up with a request here for the whole domain after consultation of the wikiproject. Consider plus Added --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    test: link to page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www. missoulian. com/articles/2007/10/08/news/mtregional/znews06.txt/ and www. missoula. com/news/node/939/

    These are two simple articles with no spam involved that are the 2 only sources in SpectrUM Discovery Area. Debresser (talk) 17:51, 21 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Somebody has added a third source from another site, but still these links are essential for the article. Debresser (talk) 14:38, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Missoulian.com is not on the blacklist. Missoula.com is blacklisted at meta. I have restored the link to missoulian.com, is that enough? Guy (Help!) 23:03, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I suppose so. What should be done with the remaining link? In general what should be done with a blacklisted reference that will not be whitelisted? Should it be left as a remark in the source code, or deleted? Debresser (talk) 10:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I normally remove blacklisted sites. Sometimes the content can be referenced from a print source, which is better. Guy (Help!) 23:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok. Thanks. Debresser (talk) 01:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    hallmarkchannelpress.com

    • Should be whitelisted because it has cast lists, synopsis, and ratings to help expand articles about the network's television movies.
    • Which articles would benefit from the addition of the link: any of their other television movies' articles. See the List of Hallmark Channel Original Films
    • The specific link to the page be added: Chasing a Dream (External Links section)

    Thanks! Cactusjump (talk) 01:49, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    animenewsnetwork.com

    Anime News Network is a reliable source for Japanese animation news, it has been used in numerous of anime-related articles in Wikipedia including FA such as Serial Experiments Lain or MADLAX. While I don't see ANN blocked in the blacklist, in the article I'm creating, the {{ann company}} template triggered the SPAM blacklist for some reason. I think it should be safe to whitelist this URL. —29th ((☎)) 02:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    cricketarchive.com and other cricket.... sites

    Some one has blacklisted anything that is cricket... websited, this is ludicrous. Every single cricket player's article references the above site, and there are thousands on Wikipedia. Please whitelist cricket archive and cricinfo ASAP. SGGH ping! 11:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.requirementone.com

    Some one has blacklisted www.requirementone.com. This site provides a free software platform for requirement management where everybody can create their own account and use the software platform completely free of charge (just like Facebook). Incose and other sites that lists requirement management software primarily lists commercial products and are not interested in including a completely free service. My view is that it is in the interest of all wikipedia users who are looking for requirement management solutions to be able to find a list of software products that includes the free ones as long as the free ones are professional and functioning well like the solution from Requirementone. The link to www.requirementone.com should be included on the page [1] under the section "On-demand requirements management platforms". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lars303 (talk • contribs) 11:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    TinyURL.com (2)

    There are serveral reference links and URL alias examples in the article for TinyURL. The article currently uses plain text to display the links, though usability-wise, it would be better if the links were clickable. The links redirect to TinyURLs' website, Wikipedia, and to whitehouse.gov. The following is a list of links that are currently being used in the article.

    • http://tinyurl.com/#example
    • http://tinyurl.com/preview.php
    • http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick
    • http://tinyurl.com/2unsh
    • http://tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl

    --Nezek (talk) 17:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just use the target URL's directly.--Hu12 (talk) 20:16, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    You misunderstood. This is an article about TinyURL, it uses the shortcuts as examples to illustrate how the service works. Also, some of the links are direct URLs, as I explained above. --Nezek (talk) 20:39, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I see. It is not Wikipedia's purpose to include a comprehensive list of "Example Links". Also;
    • preview.tinyurl.com/dick →"This TinyURL was created by a user of our service back when the creation of the IDs for the TinyURL were sequential and predictable. This TinyURL in no way represents the beliefs of the people who bring you the TinyURL service and we apologize if this has brought offense to anyone"
    • tinyurl.com/2unsh →redirects to main page of Wikipedia
    • tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl→ redirects to en:TinyURL
    The other "Examples" need not be hyperlinked to illustrate how the service works. see Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE. If you are interested in a how-to style manual using examples, you may want to look at wikiHow or our sister project Wikibooks.--Hu12 (talk) 21:25, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hu12, I'm confused by your responses. You don't even seem to have read my messages or the article. You've seem to have repeated what I, and the article, already said. And the policies you linked me to are irrelevant. WP:NOT#LINK and Wikipedia:NOTGUIDE#GUIDE have nothing to do with this. The article doesn't contain a how-to guide, and these links are relevant to the article, they are in no way a "mere collection of external links". The two links you left out of your list are not "Examples", as you put it. They both are links to TinyURLs website, and are needed for reference. Also, Why did you make a list of links again and noted where each one redirects? I had already noted what they do. --Nezek (talk) 22:15, 13 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't need a functional "reference" to show how it works, the same way we don't need to host a Flash animation in Adobe Flash. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:42, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. Why is it that I need to justify a simple edit to linkify a web address? This is a free encylopedia. I can understand the need to block certain URLs that are usually problematic, but I'm merely asking to whitelist the homepage and about pages of a website for use of citation on the article about it. I have made it clear that all the links are ment for educational purposes, and are relevant.
    And for the record, Wikipedia probably doesn't illustrate a Flash animation on Flashs' article because of technical limitations. GIF, For example, has three image animations; and Hyperlink displays an example link to Wikipedias' main page. --Nezek (talk) 01:58, 14 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    My 2 cents: this seems like a reasonable request from a trustworthy editor. I'm inclined to grant it -- is there something i'm missing? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:19, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I took a look at the links requested ... here's my comments ...
    • http://tinyurl.com/#example = a how-to guide ... not really appropriate for WP. The link to the tinyURL home page should be sufficient (and is already in the article) - users who want to know how-to can follow the links from there.
    • http://tinyurl.com/preview.php = a link to turn the preview feature on/off ... I would lump this in with the how-to pages - but in this case, I can see this one being potentially useful in the article.
    • http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick = an example of a tinyURL link; but this can be better demonstrated with the next two requests.
    • http://tinyurl.com/2unsh = a redirect to the Wikipedia mainpage. A pretty good example link, I see no reason not to allow it.
    • http://tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl = a redirect to the tinyURL article on Wikipedia. A good example, but someone on the tinyURL article who clicks it would be taken right back to the same article ... some users may not realize that the linking took place. I think the example to the mainpage link is more illustrative.
    Just my 2 cents on the links. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 01:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your comments. Perhaphs I should have been more specific about what each of them are for.
    • http://tinyurl.com/#example - This link was a technical error, I ment to reference http://tinyurl.com/#toolbar for the bit about the websites' API. However, I can agree that the link to the homepage is sufficient.
    • http://tinyurl.com/preview.php - Exactly what Barek said above.
    • http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick - This is more than just an example, it is used to cite one of the two only links on TinyURL that contain a disclaimer about the content it's redirecting to.
    The other two are example links that redirect to Wikipedia, and again, only one of them should suffice. I suggest it will be http://tinyurl.com/2unsh to avoid the confusion Barek mentioned. --Nezek (talk) 14:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Given the info above, I would support Nezek in having these whitelisted: http://tinyurl.com/preview.php , http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick , and http://tinyurl.com/2unsh . --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:46, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    <-I don't see an issue with white listing tinyurl.com URL's that are clearly under the control of the site operators.. (eg: those used for examples and such in the site documentation). --Versageek 02:34, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    • http://tinyurl.com/#example
    • http://tinyurl.com/preview.php
    • http://tinyurl.com/2unsh
    • http://tinyurl.com/wp-tinyurl
    • http://preview.tinyurl.com/dick
       Done--Hu12 (talk) 19:49, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you Hu12! note that we re-listed the links above and agreed that http://tinyurl.com/#example isn't needed. If you're going to remove http://tinyurl.com/#example from the list as a result, may I suggest you leave it as \btinyurl\.com/#\b? that way it will include all anchors and a similar request wont pop up again in the future. --Nezek (talk) 20:37, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I think there might be something off with the filter, its letting me post tinyurls that made it go off before. This is probably because the "#" in http://tinyurl.com/#example is treated as a comment. --Nezek (talk) 20:58, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi!
    Concerning [2], you could replace the "#" by "\043", e.g.,
    \btinyurl\.com/\043example\b
    or
    \btinyurl\.com/\043 (there's no need for \b here)
    because everything after '#' (including '#') will be treated as a comment. -- seth (talk) 10:58, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for catching those! Great explaination seth. Nezek, feel free to poke my talk page if you need an alternative link...--Hu12 (talk) 18:41, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    justjaredjr.buzznet.com for David Henrie

    justjaredjr.buzznet.com/2009/02/17/david-henrie-interview/ This is a link to an interview that contains information to support religious beliefs in a bio article. The site is generally a gossip site but this interview is a primary source and is reliable. --NrDg 04:28, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like a blog; can you clarify how this meets WP:RS? Stifle (talk) 16:24, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • It is an interview with transcribed comments from the principal being interviewed. Extremely unlikely that the interviewee comments are not his actual words even though transcribed by a source that is not WP:RS. Reputation for fact checking is not relevant here as no facts need checking. There is no indication that this site makes things up, just that they report unsubstantiated gossip. I understand that the source is a blog but in my judgment I consider the words spoken by the subject as transcribed on this particular site as meeting the requirements of a primary source. --NrDg 17:50, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sure we can find a more suitable source? --Kanonkas :  Talk  22:10, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • I would much like a better source as well, but this was an interview by this source. Anything else would be secondary and less reliable. The strongest backing for an assertion of religious beliefs is a direct quote from the subject. That is pretty much all the source would be used for. --NrDg 22:18, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • \bjustjaredjr\.buzznet\.com\/2009\/02\/17\/david-henrie-interview\/\b would be the code for the whitelist, I think. The pictures on the page seems to be attributed to the original author. My only concern would be the "reliable" part, per Stifle. My general experience with sites as these, is that they're likely not reliable at all. Not to mention their justjared.buzznet.com/terms-of-service/ (ToS), part 4. As it stands with the primary source part, I am not sure. If you have anything more you would like to say, now would be a good time. --Kanonkas :  Talk  10:32, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not much to add beyond what I already stated. It is a judgment call as to whether or not they accurately transcribed the words of the subject. (standard disclaimers of their not being legally responsible for errors not withstanding). They do not have a reputation of making things up like some tabloid sources have so I believe they are a reliable communication medium in this specific instance. As to it being a primary source, it is information by the subject about himself. It is reliable in that we can use it to say the subject said this, not that it is factually correct. That is all the information will be used for. Generally primary sources are discouraged but assertion of beliefs basically require an assertion quote direct from the subject. --NrDg 15:34, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'll take your word on this one. As such this request is closed as  Done. --Kanonkas :  Talk  15:47, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Test: this should work now. If I just unbroke the regex, this should work now. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:30, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    rythm.galatta.com/community/blog_entry.php?user=randorguy&blogentry_id=5544

    I am planning to write an article on the sensational Lakshmikanthan Murder Case and I am using this blog by eminent film historian Randor Guy as my source. But the site appears to be blacklisted and I am not able to add this link to the list of references. Could you please remove this URL from the blacklist so that I could add it. Thanks-RavichandarMy coffee shop 19:32, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Clerk declined Whitelisting the specific link is more appropriate in this case. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:47, 24 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, of course, I did specify the exact page for whitelisting, didn't I. You see, this is the only comprehensive work on the subject. Some articles in The Hindu newspaper, do make a passing mention of the case and the kind of impact it had on the careers of the accused but I feel that this beats all of them to it as it's more comprehensive and a single replacement for many others-RavichandarMy coffee shop 02:09, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:N rather indicates that if there is only one source - and in this case it appears to to be not only a blog but also not properly independent of at least some of the subjects covered - then the subject is likely not suitable for inclusion. Guy (Help!) 14:45, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:SELFPUB,

    Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

    Randor Guy is a recognized expert on the Lakshmikanthan Murder Case. His works have been the subject of many articles in the The Hindu and I've used them as references for the article. I've not been able to find published works on the web in the few minutes that I spent searching on the net, but this does not mean that they do not exist. The facts mentioned in the blog correlate exactly with the statements made by Randor Guy while being interviewed during a programme on the case that was telecasted in Vijay TV about an year back.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:38, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    See here[3],[4],[5],[6],[7],[8]-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:55, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:39, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm still getting a Spam filter notice when I add the URL. I guess it is the root URL rythm.galatta.com that is triggering the spam filter and needs to be whitelisted.-RavichandarMy coffee shop 04:29, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm so sorry about that.
    Can someone better at regex than I am take a look at the whitelist entry I made? Thanks, --A. B. (talk • contribs) 05:14, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's working fine now. Thanks for fixing it :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:50, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    rythm.galatta.com

    I am planning to write an article on the sensational Lakshmikanthan Murder Case and I am using a blog at this site by eminent film historian Randor Guy as my source. But the site appears to be blacklisted and I am not able to add this link to the list of references. Could you please remove this URL from the blacklist so that I could add it.

    I've already specified the blog in an earlier request of mine here. But the admin who responded asked me to specify the specific page without the "blog id" query string-RavichandarMy coffee shop 16:16, 26 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blogs are not generally considered reliable sources. Why should we make an exception in this case, please? Guy (Help!) 15:06, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to WP:SELFPUB,

    Self-published work is acceptable to use in some circumstances, with limitations. For example, material may sometimes be cited which is self-published by an established expert on the topic of the article, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications

    -RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:23, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also wish to inform that I've written a article on the subject. The article could be found here. However, most of the article uses this blog as the primary reference and the information may very well be challenged as unsourced if I am not able to add this blog to the reference list-RavichandarMy coffee shop 06:28, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added -- I have added rythm.galatta.com/community/blog_entry.php?user=randorguy&blogentry_id=5544 per your similar request above. I did not see a need to whitelist the rest of rythm.galatta.com. If I'm mistaken, please let me know. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:41, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It doesn't work. It still triggers the spam filter-RavichandarMy coffee shop 04:30, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yeah, it's working fine now. Thanks for fixing it :-)-RavichandarMy coffee shop 05:51, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Declined Requests

    fisheaters.com

    I was surprised to find this blocked, but suspect that someone must have abused this link in the past. If sufficient time has passed, it would be very helpful to be able to cite these pages again. Thanks for considering this request. --Boston (talk) 13:21, 27 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This was blacklisted on the global blacklist.  Defer to Global blacklist. --Kanonkas :  Talk  13:26, 28 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Or if there's a specific page you want to cite, and it's a reliable source, let us have the exact URL and we may be able to whitelist it. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 2 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not the original poster but I'd like to link to the URL fisheaters.com/beingcatholic.html from the entry "Catholic Devotions" [9]. That page of the website has explanations and instructions about Catholic devotions and is pretty comprehensive. 24.143.71.160 (talk) 02:48, 5 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The site offers a distorted perspective - the traditionalist Catholic view - so is not appropriate in an article on the general topic. Additionally, there is no indication that it meets our reliable sources guidelines; the owner is pseudonymous, there is no evidence of editorial board or content review, and the site owner was responsible for making a very large number of links to it on Wikipedia. Guy (Help!) 14:48, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The traditional Catholic view isn't "distorted" (see, for example, John Paul II's "Ecclesia Dei" and Benedict XVI's "Summorum Pontificum"); it's a totally legitimate means of worship in the Roman Catholic Church. Priestly fraternities fully in communion with Rome, such as the Priestly Fraternity of St. Peter (the FSSP) offer the Sacraments in accordance with the 1962 Missal, and Roman Catholics of all types practice the non-sacramental devotions described on that page. SSPX priests and Bishops also offer the Sacraments in the traditional way, but the site isn't an SSPX site. It's just traditionalist and any traditional Catholic would learn from it, as would non-traditionalist Catholics and scholars interested in the history of Catholic devotions. 24.143.71.160 (talk) 19:52, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The traditionalist view is a fringe view, and the site represents everything from that POV so is by definition distorted. That makes it problematic as a source even without the past abuse problems. Guy (Help!) 13:50, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It might be "fringe" to the world at large (as would any sort of Roman Catholicism or any sort of serious Christianity in general), but in the Catholic world, if Popes or Councils say traditionalism isn't fringe (see the documents referenced above), then it isn't, and in articles about Roman Catholicism, what is magisterial is what matters. There are priests, fully in communion with Rome (the FSSP or ICK as examples), who offer the traditional sacraments, use the traditional calendar, and encourage traditional devotions. That is what the Fisheaters site is for. 24.143.71.160 (talk) 18:36, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Defered to meta--Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    losethegame.com for The Game

    http://losethegame.com

    Okay, I realize it shouldn't necessarily be unblocked from the whole encyclopedia due to asshat vandals, but it's completely relevant on a page about The Game itself. Can an exception be made or something? --Cybercobra (talk) 07:03, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This would result in the whole domain being whitelisted. It is indeed an appropriate link for the article, but there are really significant problems with this site (it does encourage placing this link in inappropriate places, and of the edits that included this link on en.wikipedia most were like that). I would really like a suitable link like 'losethegame.com/about.htm' or something similar, provided that that page is a neutral description of the site, and it does not include the 'you lose' in any form (as then this link would do just the trick like the main domain. If such a page suitably exists, then that would be the solution. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:57, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, hows about http://losethegame.com/faq.htm. It only includes "you lose" in the context of clarifying the rules as to what thinking about The Game entails. --Cybercobra (talk) 20:50, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined This has been discussed extensively. It's not an official site, and it's owner is a serial self-promoter who's been blocked. It's blocked at meta for a good reason. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:05, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Additionaly The Game is a disambiguation page. hyperlinking would be innapropriate.--Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 19 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I obviously meant The Game (mind game) apologies for any confusion. --Cybercobra (talk) 06:34, 20 February 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]
    Deo, what's the page you want whitelisted? I tried accessing whitehat.servehttp.com/calculators/ABC.html and got back
    • "The requested URL /calculators/ABC.html was not found on this server."
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:02, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined. We had precisely this discussion quite recently. There are thousands of calculators available from sites that are not blacklisted for abuse, please choose one of those. Guy (Help!) 22:54, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Toolquarter.com

    Dear administration of Wikipedia, today I found out this link is on the blacklist of Wikipedia. I see no reason for this. Adding it to the articles concerning the Tool band, seems to be impossible now, altough this website could add something to the articles. It's all about discussing on ToolQuarter, but that's what makes Tool the band it is today. It's a complex band and people often want to share opinions and visions about it. The article on Wikipedia is far too objective on the band. I'm sure people interested in the article about Tool would be interested in reading some other visions on the music. Their are several essay's to find on it and these texts can make a difference for the articles here on Wikipedia. For instance this writing on the song 46&2; *url here*/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=144. I don't see why this couldn't be interesting for Wikipedia.

    Thanks. ReinVO (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Was added to several wikis by a handful of IPs. Not deemed to be too useful. Could some editors from Wikipedia:WikiProject Tool have a look at this? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:06, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    With all respect, but the visions on the many tool songs cán add something to the specific song-articles. Visions of fans are more important then facts on songs I know for a looong time now. I'm pretty sure others think about it in the same way as I do. Btw, soon there's going to be a fanpage, with lots of information on the band. Would that be useful then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by ReinVO (talk • contribs) 12:24, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I am not saying that that it is not correct, I'd just like to hear some input from others. Could you contact the wikiproject? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:32, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hey, Sean here. I totally think that the website should be removed from the blacklist. Any (trustworthy) website regarding information on the subject of an article should be taken into account. toolquarter.com seems trustworthy enough, and if it turns out to be false, then we can always change the information back, can't we? mÆniac Ask! 20:30, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Based on m:User:COIBot/XWiki/toolquarter.com, it appears this was used for major cross-wiki spamming. Can we get clarification as to how this is a reliable source? Also, if you want the entire domain delisted you need to ask at m:Talk:Spam blacklist; this page is to request that one or a few pages be permitted, and if that's the case, please say which pages. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 18 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just declined removal at the meta blacklist. The rationale there was about the same: a place where people talk about the band. We do not generally link fansites or forums, I think. Guy (Help!) 22:39, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The site is going to be updated soon, with lots of articles and stuff. I might revisit these talks for asking removal then.
    no Declined Fansites are not reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:29, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    ReinVO (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · blacklist hits · AbuseLog · what links to user page · count · COIBot · Spamcheck · user page logs · x-wiki · status · Edit filter search · Google · StopForumSpam)
    Also Declined on meta--Hu12 (talk) 20:22, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    british-tv.suite101.com/article.cfm/law_order_uk_review_episode_1

    This is a review of the limited premiere of the new TV series Law & Order: UK. Reading into the specific author of this post seems to me to be sufficiently reliable. While, only after reading the derision of the root suite101.com, I would prefer a review from a source not so disliked, I have not found any thus far. — pd_THOR | =/\= | 21:47, 16 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I found this review from The Stage -- does that work for you? This looks like a new show in the U.K. -- there may be some more reviews in the next several week, perhaps? --A. B. (talk • contribs) 01:31, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's a good piece, and I may incorporate some of it into the article. But the former review has some specific information that the latter doesn't (episode names, plot specifics, the original episode's name, and some more). Will all this information come out again after public airing? Maybe, but as the show is British, I'm unfamiliar with the outlets used and could easily miss it when/if it does come out.

    Am I allowed to make a compromise? We use some "okay" sourcing sometimes in the absence of "good/great" sourcing until the latter is published or is simply found. Can I link this source (I'm using it already, just unlinked) under the stipulation that I'll remove it once I (or other editors) find equitable content from a less contentious publisher? — pd_THOR | =/\= | 01:49, 17 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. Suite 101 is problematic to say the least (including offering a per-click bounty, apparently), and this does not appear to be a reliable source. Guy (Help!) 22:35, 22 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    another Newsweek url

    I'm editing the article Peak uranium because I found it in Category:Articles with broken citations and it turnes out this is because a link to a Newsweek article that has been blocked. The link leads a to a fine and relevant article, and I'd like to ask you to unblock it. This is it: http:// www. moneyweek. com /investments/commodities/are-we-facing-peak-uranium.aspx

    It's not Newsweek but Moneyweek. NJGW (talk) 15:47, 6 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, yes, you're right. Debresser (talk) 17:14, 7 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear administrators...? Debresser (talk) 10:03, 8 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The text supported by the citation was a very brief sentence: "This caused some to speculate that peak uranium has arrived." It had two sources, one of which was the moneyweek one. I'm wondering whether this is a matter of undue weight, but since there is another cite I would think that should be sufficient for now, given the limited content. Guy (Help!) 15:03, 9 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You are right. In the mean time another user, oblivious to the discussion here and on the talk page there, already deleted the link. Request withdrawn. Debresser (talk) 22:39, 12 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from Whitelist (sites to block)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Procedures

    To get a perfectly good link whitelisted is an ordeal. I actually have given up (for the second time). I feel myself like a criminal explaning that he did nothing wrong. Where should I discuss simplification of whitelisting rules or, alternatively, the unwillingness of admins to apply the rules, whichever may be the case? Debresser (talk) 09:27, 20 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    Allmusic

    While trying to edit Chuck Wagon and the Wheels I got a message saying that allmusic was a blacklisted link. It wasn't just a minute ago. What the heck happened? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Norton AntiVirus

    Editing the above article, I tried to reference the Washington Post, and got a message saying that it was blacklisted. I checked the blacklist, both the local and global ones, and couldn't find the root domain name. I tried again. Blocked. Hope this doesn't count against me in anyway. TechOutsider (talk) 01:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)TechOutsider[reply]

    forbes.com

    I'm trying to restore blanked content on Talk:Meez. The page contains a link to a relevant article at forbes.com, but since the URL contains the word "chat" (meez is in large part a chat service), it is running up against the black list.

    gotta be a glitch here - I'll head to help desk . — Ched (talk) 02:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It's being worked on. — Ched (talk) 03:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=273441342"