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 10:30, 4 September 2009 (→‎blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/). 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|311811200#section_name}}

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

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

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     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}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

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

    www.cais-soas.com/News/2009/March2009/13-03.htm

    This is blacklisted for some reason, but I would like to link to the page from Esfandiar Rahim Mashaie because it concerns an organization for which he is responsible, and has a picture of him. Is there some reason to disallow this, or can the page be white-listed for the en wiki? EdH (talk) 07:28, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The site is blocked per WP:ELNEVER because it is known to carry content in violation of owners' copyrights. Is this an exception? Stifle (talk) 08:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think this is an exception.

    The (www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/copyright.htm) copyright notice states

    CAIS has the privilege to publish a number of articles originating from the above-mentioned sources, as well as other scholarly websites / publishers, for educational purposes only (Read Only). ... For any other purposes than educational, you must obtain a written permission from the copyright owner concerned.

    This is not one of those articles. I searched with Google & Bing and found only 2 sites containing a snippet of text from this page; the second is a blog that quotes this page and attributes copyright to CAIS.

    The copyright notice page states regarding the "CAIS virtual museum" that

    You acknowledge that the images on the Website are the copyright works of third parties or, in some cases, the CAIS; that the legitimate interests of those copyright owners may be damaged by any unauthorised use you may make of the images; that the copyright owners shall be entitled to take any appropriate legal action against you, including to seek an injunction or other equitable relief, in any Court of competent jurisdiction, should you make any unauthorised use of the images.

    The images to which this language relates are those of ancient artifacts in the site's (www.cais-soas.com/CAIS/virtual_museum/image_library.htm) "museum" section. This page contains no such picture. It does contain a picture of a vice president of Iran. I used Google images to search for the same image as used on this page and could find it nowhere else, so I don't know its source.

    The original Farsi language page, of which the page under discussion is a translation, is illustrated with a different picture. I could link to the Farsi page, but we are trying to avoid linking to pages that are not in English. EdH (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I see no clear 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).Linking to copyrighted works, Knowingly and intentionally directing others to a site that violates copyright has been considered a form of contributory infringement in the United States (Intellectual Reserve v. Utah Lighthouse Ministry [1]).[2].
    • Thanks for the suggestion but honestly the Google translation of that page is gibberish. It will be better not to use it.

    This is not a question of whether or not to link to a copyrighted work, since all of the pages concerned including the Persian original are copyrighted. According to Linking to copyrighted works

    Since most recently-created works are copyrighted, almost any Wikipedia article which cites its sources will link to copyrighted material. It is not necessary to obtain the permission of a copyright holder before linking to copyrighted material.

    and for example

    ...it may be acceptable to link to a reputable website's review of a particular film, even if it presents a still from the film (such uses are generally either explicitly permitted by distributors or allowed under fair use).

    Regarding what you call "clear evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimer" did you look at the site's copyright page mentioned above? I don't think I am sufficiently interested in this to pursue the matter any further, but I reproduce the relevant text below.

    All WWW pages and their contents in the hierarchy of www.cais-soas.com, the "Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies (CAIS)", are, except where expressly stated otherwise (*) are copyright © 1998~ of Circle of Ancient Iranian Studies.

    The section describing those "expressly stated otherwise" reads as follows:

    Please note:
    Re: Articles originating from: Encyclopaedia Iranica, Vohuman.org, Avesta.org, Webfestschrift Marshak Ērān ud Anērān and other articles which contain the word “Source” at the bottom of their page-files.
    CAIS has the privilege to publish a number of articles originating from the above-mentioned sources, as well as other scholarly websites / publishers, for educational purposes only (Read Only). These articles have been published in accordance with the authors / sources' copyright-policies -- therefore, the ownership and copyright of these articles remain with the authors / sources. [Before reproducing them f]or any other purposes than educational, you must obtain a written permission from the copyright owner concerned.

    That seems to be "clear evidence of copyright permission or fair-use disclaimer". It says that the entire site is copyright of the owners of the site except for certain identified parts whose reproduction has been authorized by the relevant copyright owners.

    This statement explicitly claims permitted or fair use of all material it does not own, and this justifies the use of a link to the subject matter requested, which is definitively owned by that site. I don't know the history of the CAIS site, but it is being handled as if it were like The Pirate Bay, which it is not.

    That said, the inclusion or not of a probably unread external reference under an obscure article is a matter over which I don't think we should spend much time. We can certainly live without it. EdH (talk) 19:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.antu.com

    Hi, I was trying to update a page and this website seemed to be blocked. I am not sure why?

    I was trying to add the links to Tuncay Sanli's page. Although the site is in Turkish it is a site run in conjunction with Fenerbahce football club. It is one of their sponsors. I was trying to use the links: antu.com/AntuHaberOku.aspx?ID=5146 and antu.com/AntuHaberOku.aspx?ID=8482 as it shows the list's of 'Player of the Year' Awards, awarded for the Fenerbahce footballers. Antu is the sponsor/organiser of the Awards, hence why I was trying to link to the official site.

    Regards (Hayalperest (talk) 18:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    This site was blacklisted for cross-wiki spamming, see here. However, I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in around a week unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Heres an Idea; Since Our readers are better served with english references and links, try;
    • http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&u=antu.com%2FAntuHaberOku.aspx%3FID%3D8482&sl=tr&tl=en&history_state0=
    Since translate.google.com is not blacklisted you can use the origional (now translated) article. Cheers --Hu12 (talk) 18:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, yes it would be good if it could be un-blocked as the site can then be referenced to all players at the club, etc. Also, thats a good idea about the google-translate tool too. Regards (Hayalperest (talk) 11:57, 19 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    See Wikipedia:EL#Non-English_language_content. No reason for whitelisting Turkish content on the English-language Wikipedia, as English language content is preferred. Use translate.google.com. cheers--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree that having English is better, but some websites translate very badly using the Google-Translate tool. It is effective, but I have checked with the Antu site, and the translation isnt very good. Infact it is pretty bad, it hasn't even translated a lot of the words. I believe it would still be beneficial to have the original site as a reference. I do not believe that this will be detrimental to Wiki. Many pages have foriegn language references, if there are no official site's with the English equivalent. Given the reason for wanting to get *this* site unblocked (ie. as it is the official sponsor and the company that gives the awards), I would rather use Antu instead of google translate, as that would mean I have to translate every page for *each* player's awards which are handed out *each* season. Regards (Hayalperest (talk) 20:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    I know your fairly new (since june), so let me explain. Its first a resticted link (see #2), this is meta-blacklisted. Additionaly it is not an official link of either articles subject (per WP:EL). Thirdly being both the previous, its is not English language content. In addition I've provided a reasonable alternative, which is available now and in english. Perhaps your request is beter served on the Turkish Wikipedia ? --Hu12 (talk) 22:30, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    No probs... If Wiki rules will not allow this site to be unblocked, then that is the rules, and that is that..? Am a little dissapointed but I am happy to use the alternative Google-Translate if that is what is the only available way to link to the antu.com site. Thank you for your time. Regards (Hayalperest (talk) 23:27, 24 August 2009 (UTC))[reply]

    blog.hubpages.com/2008/10/hubs-versus-blogs/

    Requesting whitelisting for this exact link on only the HubPages article because it is cited therein as a source. Due to the blacklist, its link is currently broken in the References. --Cybercobra (talk) 09:31, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (quick comment) Notice that the author of the blog is part of Hubpage's staff http://hubpages.com/about/, that it's not making outrageous statements and that it's used to source stuff about how hubs work. So, this would be an acceptable source under WP:SELFPUB. --Enric Naval (talk) 10:09, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    In case it wasn't clear: I have reviewed the link and the article, and I independently endorse this whitelisting. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:27, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless someone posts a reason why I should not. Stifle (talk) 08:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Approved Stifle (talk) 10:30, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/96216/ETC/RG58CU.html

    Please whitelist http://pdf1.alldatasheet.com/datasheet-pdf/view/96216/ETC/RG58CU.html. Data used in primary line constants. It would be nice if the data were referenced to the datasheet it came from. SpinningSpark 14:52, 27 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless someone provides a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 14:51, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note I have also made a request at Meta for the site to be unblocked. I am still none the wiser on why it is blacklisted. SpinningSpark 16:25, 28 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am going to delay this request until the meta request is processed; it would seem pointless to whitelist it as things stand. Stifle (talk) 08:17, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    invisionfree.com/forums/StockClassPaintball/

    Please whitelist invisionfree.com/forums/StockClassPaintball/ There are a number of sub-pages which would be useful references for several of Wikipedia's paintball pages. This particular section of the linked forum: invisionfree.com/forums/StockClassPaintball/index.php?showtopic=1326 has directly relevant discussions to DD68 Redux page.

    I am unclear if the entire "invisionfree.com" domain has been blacklisted or if it is only that particular forum. Only the StockClassPaintball forum is of direct relevance, should there be a reason to continue to blacklist invisionfree.com. C.J. (talk) 01:03, 1 September 2009 (UTC)cjottawa 20:59EDT, 31 August 2009[reply]

    • no Declined, forums are not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 11:24, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have been asked to reconsider this decision and have declined to do so; out of courtesy I would like to leave the matter open for another admin to look at and will yield to his/her decision. Stifle (talk) 14:49, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Forum's are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. I'm not convinced how Whitelisting the entire StockClassPaintball Forum could be used as as a citation. Would seem there are other reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. I do agree with Stifle, no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 15:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Consideration appreciated. Online forums have largely displaced traditional publications as outlets for paintball industry-insiders to publish material, findings.C.J. (talk) 18:51, 1 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    europedia.moussis.eu

    This URL is currently blacklisted. There must be an error because Europedia is an authoritative site on European Union policies and legislation. It is visited by some 20,000 persons a month, most of whom come from the United States. Adding the Europedia URL to the external links of some Wikipedia articles could bring valuable additional information to Wikipedia readers. Therefore, I request that the above URL be unblocked. Thank you in advance.Noikossa (talk) 16:23, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is blocked at meta with no reason given in the log. To request removal from the blacklist, you have to place your request at m:talk:Spam blacklist. Stifle (talk) 11:59, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_literature/35311 & suite101.com/article.cfm/canadian_literature/35675

    "Beth Goobie: Power and Survival" the following copyright notice appears: The copyright of the article Beth Goobie: Power and Survival in Canadian Literature is owned by Paula E. Kirman. Permission to republish Beth Goobie: Power and Survival in print or online must be granted by the author in writing. , do you have any proof that this is a copyright vio? Pohick2 (talk) 19:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Suite101 links are blacklisted because the site offers remuneration based on page views, has no editorial oversight, and is not a reliable source. It has nothing to do with copyright. no Declined Stifle (talk) 11:57, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Lulu.com

    The address "www dot lulu dot com" is blocked and can't be used on a Wikipedia page. The domain name belongs to Lulu (company), and it would be nice to allow the use of links to the company's web site in the article about the company itself. I have located several places in that article where I would like to have direct links to the company web site:

    • The infobox contains the text "Website: lulu.com", and "lulu.com" lacks the "www" and isn't a clickable link. In other company articles, the URL in the infobox is clickable.
    • The references section begins with this sentence: "Due to links to lulu.com being banned from Wikipedia, a number of links below do not work directly, but need to be constructed." In a number of the references, URLs to the web site are listed as "www dot lulu dot com" instead of being listed directly. The references section lists sources for information in the article, and in my opinion all of these references are fair. I would like all of them to be clickable links. (212.247.11.156 (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC))[reply]
    • Just noting that I used "nowiki" tags in that article so the banned URLs don't look so ugly. --Enric Naval (talk) 22:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not going to whitelist the entire site — it's blocked because articles/books there are not reliable sources and, in some cases, are pay-per-click, but I could whitelist www.lulu.com/en/help/lulu_basics if you want.
    P.S. The use of nowiki to circumvent the blacklist is a *really bad idea*; it's used so much that it's going to get itself banned before long. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    education.stateuniversity.com

    Amusingly, I came to this page to request local whitelisting of this page for my sandbox (User:Peace and Passion/SandboxPE), and the first request on this page is for the same thing. I am trying to write an improved PE article in my sandbox, and the only good reference I can find to a point in the history of AAHPERD is on the "education.stateuniversity.com" website (which has a whole section on the history which even the official AAHPERD site doesn't contain). The reference I was trying to include follows - I've never been blocked by the spamlist before and I'm not sure of how it works or the procedure required; but, it told me to request local unprotection here: 

    <ref>
{{cite web| 
url =http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1748/American-Alliance-Health-Physical-Education-Recreation-Dance.html | 
title = Program, Organizational Structure, Membership and Financial Support, History and Development| 
publisher =Stateuniversity.com| 
accessdate = 2009-07-28| 
quote= ''[...][T]his group became the American Association for the Advancement of Physical Education. 
[...] In 1903 the organization changed its name to the American Physical Education Association.''}}
</ref>

    Realistically, I guess only the specific URL 

    http://education.stateuniversity.com/pages/1748/American-Alliance-Health-Physical-Education-Recreation-Dance.html

    needs whitelisting, not the parent education.stateuniversity.com which I titled this request with. It would also be nice if it could be locally whitelisted for the PE article itself, as I plan to import it there at some point. Thanks for your time and consideration, Peace and Passion (talk) 21:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC).[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 08:26, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com

    Dear Sirs,

    Why is link to Cambridge Encyclopedia blacklisted?

    I want to use a reference from http://encyclopedia.stateuniversity.com/pages/2246/Bactria.html in Bactria article. Thanks! 202.163.91.163 (talk) 15:39, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It is blocked arising from this request. I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 20 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Stifle (talk) 08:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    patagonianexpeditionrace.com

    1. Explain why the site should be whitelisted.

    The site that I want to whitelist is the official site of the race that the article talks about, so it's important to add it as an external link to provide information and guidance related to the article.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link.

    It is the article of the patagonian expedition race : http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Patagonian_expedition_race

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added.

    The link of the page is patagonianexpeditionrace.com

    200.72.157.72 (talk) 21:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment:
    This link was widely spammed across multiple Wikimedia Foundation projects, leading to its blacklisting at the Global Blacklist on Meta-Wiki. Here's the report:
    On the English Wikipedia, the Patagonian Expedition Race article was created and edited by several single purpose accounts. External links to the web site and/or internal links to this article were added to every remotely related article; for example see Special:Contributions/PORTORico.
    This race may or may not be notable; I've left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile#Patagonian Expedition Race asking for help with the article. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:35, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I also left a message at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Orienteering#Patagonian Expedition Race. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 00:40, 26 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am inclined to reject this request as no specific page has been suggested and the request is not from an established editor. I will leave this open for a few days in case a reason to do otherwise arises. Stifle (talk) 10:18, 27 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Interesting response at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Chile#Patagonian Expedition Race. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:01, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    (reopened) As a established editor, I would to request the whitelisting of this specific page:

    • http://patagonianexpeditionrace.com/en/races.php

    I am rewriting a bit the Patagonian_Expedition_Race article and I am using this as a reference for the specific races. The link itself has no info, but the menu at the top allows to see the data for each annual race. I think that this link is unlikely to be spammed. (btw, IMHO, the question of the race being notable belongs more to other places like WP:AFD). --Enric Naval (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'll whitelist this specific link, http://www.patagonianexpeditionrace.com/en/races.php, for use in the Patagonian Expedition Race article only. Variations other than the format above, will not work or be linkable. If further abuse is detected, or links appear in articles other than Patagonian Expedition Race the link will be removed from use. As stated above, the general Whitelisting of the sites domain is still no Declined.--Hu12 (talk) 04:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thank you very much :) Link added to article. I suggest the site owner that he doesn't abuse this link, because then I won't be able to help him if it gets blacklisted again. Also for the site owner, he can leave me a note in User_talk:Enric_Naval if he wants to suggest any other deep link that I can use for reference in the article, and he should also leave a short note in Talk:Patagonian_Expedition_Race with a concise note of why the link is useful to source neutral information in the article so other editors can also see it. I can't guarantee that I will use the links, but at least I will take a look at them and consider them. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied Requests

    www.andhranews.net

    Page to whitelist: www.andhranews.net/India/2007/September/19-Babri-mosque-demolition-16094.asp

    This page provides web access to a serious news report. Its exact title and date match certain citations of Yahoo News which are now dead links, and the web archive has no copy. I propose citing (ANI via) AndhraNews.net at the same places inline.

    Articles to link from: Babri Mosque, Ayodhya debate, etc.

    About other portions of the site I haven't looked, don't know their reputation, and make no request.

    Prari (talk) 07:32, 10 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This has been blocked due to spamming; see [3]. However, I am inclined to grant this request and will do so in a week or so unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Plenty of reasonable alternatives availiable take your pick;
    • http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/india-news/people-in-ayodhya-crave-for-peace-on-babri-masjid-demolition_1007962.html
    • http://www.topnews.in/people-ayodhya-crave-peace-babri-demolition-anniversary-28392
    • http://news.oneindia.in/2007/09/19/babri-mosque-demolition-case-hearing-sept-19.html
    andhranews.net is simply a Scraper site Made for adsense News aggreggation. Plenty of sites have archive copies of stories such as this.--Hu12 (talk) 18:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squidoo.com/VegetableGardenLayout

    www.squidoo.com is black listed but www.squidoo.com/VegetableGardenLayout has some info that could help out with the Kitchen garden article. Particularly with the different types of vegetable gardens. 58.107.1.244 (talk) 09:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    squidoo.com links:
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Additionaly Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote your Squidoo page.--Hu12 (talk) 14:04, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 21:11, 22 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.sajjadalifanclub.co.cc

    the site should be whitelisted becuse it is the only fan site of sajjad ali the pop singer of pakistan.
    the article which will benefit the user are the album section from where the users can download and get info about all tha albums of sajjad ali
    the index page should be added as the users can have full approach to get all the information about sajjad ali. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chiefsab (talk • contribs) 19:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    swinefluindia.co.cc/faq.php

    Site has no objectionable material. Has good info/faqs on swine flu ans shall help all articles related to swine flu pandemic. Bhavik1st (talk) 22:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Site has ads. There are plenty of excellent government and notable medical references with information on this that aren't seeking commercial revenue. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:31, 25 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    eHow.com

    1.) Explain why the site should be whitelisted. eHow.com is a legitimate community-based information sharing site. This site should be on the Whitelist as it relates to user generated content destinations online.

    2.) Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EHow http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DemandStudios.com

    3.) Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. I cannot link to eHow.com without the site being blocked.

    Thank you

    SKMetzger (talk) 23:25, 28 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The article eHow already contains the apropriate link. Additionaly,
    eHow.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 16:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    pickeringchatto.com

    I cannot fathom why this extremely respectable academic publishers, whose website includes invaluable information about texts and so would be an informative link from article bibliographies, is blocked. The particular links I was trying to add, to my new article on Mark Philp, are those to the pages on the Collected Political and Philosophical Works of William Godwin (pickeringchatto.com/major_works/the_political_and_philosophical_writings_of_william_godwin) and the Collected Novels and Memoirs of William Godwin (pickeringchatto.com/major_works/the_collected_novels_and_memoirs_of_william_godwin), whose pages provides elucidatory information on the nature of the works referenced.

    Ronald Collinson (talk) 20:22, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • It was blocked for spamming; see [4]. In these circumstances, whitelisting will be considered by request of an established user. Stifle (talk) 09:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done Stifle (talk) 08:33, 20 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    karppa.freeforums.org

    I'm the administrator of this site. I created it because the original fansite/message board went down (this site [5] ) and I could not get an reply from the site owner. It has been down for over two months now and the account has been closed. The link to that site no longer works on the wiki page. So I wanted to replace it with my link

    This wiki article [6] is where I want to have the site posted at.

    The site would benefit this article because anyone who visits the article that are interested in discussing or just chatting about the person or so they can talk with other fans can come to the message board.

    And this is the link ( karppa.freeforums.org ) that I'm requesting to to be unblocked from the filter.

    I would really appreciate it and so would other fans as well.

    Icebox42 (talk) 05:59, 6 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    How does Wikipedia benefit from the whitelisting of your site? MER-C 10:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 15:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn or Otherwise Past Relevance

    indianetzone.com/32/n_n_pillai_indian_theatre_personality.htm

    I do not know why this site was blacklisted. Can't see much of spam here. Anyway, if that specific link is unblocked an external link from the article N. N. Pillai may be useful. Salih (talk) 14:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Details of why this was blacklisted are here. That site doesn't appear to be a reliable source, though; can you please explain how it qualifies? Stifle (talk) 19:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no idea about the reliablity of indianetzone.com as a site. I just saw a write-up about N. N. Pillai on the site. The content of the write-up seems to be accurate. No need to unblock if the site is not reliable. Salih (talk) 10:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The link seems to be a copyvio of "The Oxford companion to Indian theatre", page 354, I get almost exact matches [7][8][9].
    And I noticed another possible copyvio, part of their page about Ismat Chughtai http://www.indianetzone.com/2/bollywood_writers.htm seems to be copied from the summary of a 2004 lecture [10]
    According to the report in Wikiproject spam this is just one more of Jupiter Infomedia's spammed networks. None of their articles are signed or cite any source, I can easily find copyvios, and there is no guarantee of accuracy or indications of any editorial or quality control. indianetzone is not a reliable source, it's full of copyvios, and it should remain blacklisted. We should nuke all the remaining links to that website[11]. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:57, 4 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your explanation. I realize that the site should remain blocked. Salih (talk) 16:43, 8 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    This is considered Withdrawn. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 17 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Not sure why this is tripping the filter

    I'm trying to add www.bpamp.co.cc/Download/Publication/Settlement_and_Argri_E.pdf to Ratanakiri (to replace a dead link) but it keeps getting blocked by the filter. ("The following link has triggered a protection filter: http:// www.bpamp.co.cc") I can't find the rule it's matching and somehow I doubt that a Cambodian NGO has been spending a lot of time spamming wikipedia... Can someone help out? Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    oh damn it, evidently the organization hasn't actually uploaded the pdf they're linking to and it's going to some spammy 404.. never mind. :( Calliopejen1 (talk) 18:02, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    FYI, "co.cc" sites are blocked by the filter because that domain is a redirect service, and has extensive use for spammers. Specific sites can be whitelisted if they meet the requirements. Cheers. --Ckatzchatspy 20:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll consider this Withdrawn then. Stifle (talk) 08:20, 30 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.indiaacademic.com/

    Indiaacademic.com is one of the leading educational websites of India</a>, trusted by millions of students and teachers across the country. The information about eligibility criteria for CAT can be useful for the related page on wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.160.140.240 (talk) 10:44, 7 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Article List of beer styles - bjcp links

    Request allowing links to each page of the bjcp style guides for the List of beer styles article. Also links be allowed on Beer style and Beer Judge Certification Program. My understanding is that links have been disallowed across Wikipedia space because of excessive and inappropriate spamming by one or more individuals. That is fine, as such links are mostly (with some exceptions) discouraged by WikiProject Beer in specific beer style articles (such as Dortmunder Export), however WikiProject Beer has determined that such links are appropriate when talking directly about the BJCP. SilkTork *YES! 19:18, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't whitelist the whole domain, is/are there specific links that we can whitelist (just leave the http:// off, and you can save it here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:38, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Moot, links have been de-blacklisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    I find very nice presentation about Krakow in the Internet: www.pol-and.eu/EN/Krakow.html, I tried to entered it as a link on article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Krak%C3%B3w but it was blacklisted. My proposal is to publish it in the link section. Regards Michal 80.238.121.172 (talk) 16:29, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • You've requested that this site be blocked. Please clarify. Stifle (talk) 08:51, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    http://ocpd.forumotion.net

    I would like to use this link on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCPD.

    I feel that for disorders, such as OCPD, that it is important to be able to find support groups with members that are going through the same symptoms. Support Groups alone can provide multitudes of information to those that are suffering with a disorder. I would like to see links to support groups for OCPD, and other disorders, on wikipedia because I feel that it would prove to be extremely useful. A list of such links would be a great addition to the "Self-help" section. Thank you for your consideration. —Preceding unsigned comment added by DanaeP (talk • contribs) 19:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not blacklisted, as indicated by the fact that you could link it in the header.
    As an aside, it's curious that an entirely new user finds their way here on a first edit. Stifle (talk) 08:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    The spam filter blocked a link I was adding in a discussion page. Fair enough, but in doing so destroyed an hours worth of edits, which I could not reload or go back to as they had "timed out". Bad show. Wiredrabbit (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:07, 29 April 2009 (UTC).[reply]

    • I agree with Wiredrabbit's comment above. Isn't there some way to accept Talk Page edits but just break the link? cmadler (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Not at the moment. I agree that presenting the text submitted (same way as an edit conflict) would help, though. I'll see about raising a bugzilla. Most decent browsers will keep the text in the textarea as edited if you hit the back button, though. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      Bugzilla:9416 deals with this. Stifle (talk) 08:43, 5 May 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

    What are you doing —Preceding unsigned comment added by Svtuition (talk • contribs) 07:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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=311811200"