MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Hu12 (talk | contribs) at 17:00, 24 October 2009 (→‎astronauticsnow.com: 3 done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

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

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

    Also in your request, please include the following:

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

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

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

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

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|321782532#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)

    squidoo.com/galilschool

    Although this is a self-published squidoo site, it is nonetheless the only official outlet of the Galil Jewish-Arab School, and as such is really an essential external link for the page. Arikk (talk) 09:34, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you sure the school doesn't have a proper website? Most reputable schools have their own domains. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The school has relied until now on the website of its parent organisation Hand in Hand. However, it has only recently begun to project an internet identity of its own. True, Squidoo is hardly an official-type host, but it is, at the moment, all there is. Arikk (talk) 12:11, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatly this is not an official page. It was created by you as was the article Galil Jewish-Arab School. squidoo.com/lensmasters/galilschoolparents " galilschoolparents, aka Arik ...". A problem here is squidoo.com offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views. While its nice your attempting to advance this school, Wikipedia is not a vehicle to promote a Squidoo "lense". I did a search on Network Solutions website, the domain galiljewish-arabschool.com/net/ect.. are availiable. Perhaps this could be suggested to the school board? --Hu12 (talk) 21:04, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand your decision - although I wouldn't like you to think that I'm promoting personal financial incentives, merely pointing interested readers at a site with more information. Arikk (talk) 22:40, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    urban.cccb.org

    I wished to add a reference to the article Sea organ, to verify that it jointly won the 2006 "European Prize for Urban Public Space". The above URL is the prize's official site, yet triggered the spam filter. Fribbler (talk) 17:52, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    CCCB.org is blacklisted at meta due to spamming by a paid editor. See [1]. If you want to delist the entire domain, you need m:talk:spam blacklist. Whitelisting of one or a few links (which must be specified in full) can be done here, but I must inform you that this appears to be a first-party source; as we prefer third-party sources, I would be minded to decline such a request. Stifle (talk) 08:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 15:46, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Found a New York Times reference to the award. A better ref all round. Fribbler (talk) 21:22, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ehow.com

    I'dd like to add www.ehow.com/how-does_4596335_stainless-steel-remove-odors.html to the article Stainless steel soap. The page indicated is clear, informative and comprehensive. I think it'd be a good addition to the article. --Waldir talk 13:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    eHhow.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Offers its authors "financial" incentives to increase page views
    • Offers Writer’s Compensation Program (WCP), to drive traffic to articles (www.ehow.com/write.html)
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Would seem there are plenty of alternative Reliable and Verifiable sources available.--Hu12 (talk) 15:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll assume the sources already in the article are considered reliable. With that assumption, and since the the content of this specific page is pretty much consistent with what the article says, while being clear and informative (as I pointed above) and without any promotional tone, I think that this specific piece shouldn't be judged for the faults of other eHow pages. --Waldir talk 15:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tvdata.tv

    please whitelist www.tvdata.tv there is loads of valuable video on the site to enrich wikipedia —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.123.232.247 (talk • contribs) 06:44, 13 October 2009

    Previous abuse. your IP posted this link by user youtube user "TVDATARU" ie spam account TVDATARU (talk · contribs) uploaded September 28. Also, current cross wiki spamming by your IP, ru:Special:Contributions/188.123.232.247. Additionaly its a Link normally to be avoided. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    kfantransmittertour.co.cc

    Please unblock kfantransmittertour.co.cc for use of the KFAN_(AM) article. The site had to be moved due the closing of Geocities free web hosting. The site provides history and technical information. No ads, no spam. The site is currently linked to the old address and can not be updated due to the block. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.210.153.204 (talk) 17:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. The .co.cc domain has huge spam levels and virtually no reliable sources; therefore, the request will be considered only on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 08:47, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.theclassicalshop.net/details06MP3.asp?CNumber=CHAN%2010138

    Other pages at the Chandos Records "The Classical Shop" do not appear to be blocked, so I do not understand why this one is. I did not find this exact url in either the local or global lists, so I don't think I understand how they work. In any case, the page has a downloadable PDF of the booklet for the CD which contains a valuable essay by the musicologist Antony Beaumont. I would like to provide a link to the page in the article about Beaumont, which includes a list of CDs that he has conducted. --Robert.Allen (talk) 18:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Appears to be an sales order page for Alexander Zemlinsky music?--Hu12 (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Please take a look at the section Antony Beaumont#Selected recordings (as conductor). The link would provide a reference for the source of some of the information in that section. I had a link there previously (which adding again now is blocked, since "theclassicalshop.net" has been blacklisted). Although this is a commercial site (and music can be purchased from it), it also provides much useful information about the recording (for those of us who prepare discographies). I wanted to change this link, because the new link provides access to a downloadable booklet for the CD which contains an essay by the conductor, the subject of the Wikipedia article. He is also a musicologist, and the essay is a an example of some of the results of his work. I do not consider this link to be spam. And I think any musicologist would consider a discography to be a legitimate part of an article on such a topic (see for example: Marc-André Roberge, who includes a discography in his very scholarly book Ferruccio Busoni: A Bio-Bibliography). I have also added a request to have "theclassicalshop.net" site removed from the blacklist, but I have no idea whether that will be successful. --Robert.Allen (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done here; deferred to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#theclassicalshop.net (permanent link) for a discussion of removing the entire domain from the blacklist. If full domain removal is declined there, then let me know and I will whitelist this one link. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:27, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.moviereviewintelligence.com

    Please unblock www.MovieReviewIntelligence.com. The site provides professional movie review information for the movie industry, covering big movies as well as indie films. The most accurate information about movie reviews available. No spam. Here is a New York Times profile about the website: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/13/movies/13critics.html?_r=1&ref=arts Here is a Los Angeles Times profile of the website: http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/13/entertainment/et-rotten13 Please advise. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dagrossla (talk • contribs) 17:25, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See:
    This link was spammed in spite of requests to stop.
    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
    Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    imagesglasgow.com

    No idea why this site is blocked. Appears to be operated by a reputable magazine publisher. Contains article about the history of the Glasgow Railway which appears to be legitimate (I happen to know the interview subject). Curious block. Can we whitelist this, please? - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 06:52, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see [2], which outlines the problem with respect to this domain and many others from Journal Communications. --Ckatzchatspy 07:58, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Cleanup on aisle five! There's a baby in our bathwater! --NE2 15:41, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to whitelist a specific page if you give me the details. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 16:51, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I just did some checking and I think this may be what you're looking for; I just whitelisted it:
    If you need something else, let me know. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:01, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the one! Many thanks. In all the years I've been an editor here, this is the first time I've dealt with the whitelist process. - Realkyhick (Talk to me) 21:32, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Marking  Done for archival. Stifle (talk) 08:49, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    davidbenariel.org

    "David Ben-Ariel" should be whitelisted, as it offers priceless information on everything from the Philadelphia Church of God, Worldwide Church of God, from the unique perspective of a former member of both, as well as the plain truth about Easter, Christmas, the Lost Ten Tribes of Israel, etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.229.153 (talk) 14:29, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Extensive cross-wiki spamming from various anonymous IPs in the Midwestern USA. This includes another customer[3] of the small Buckeye Cable TV company just like you[4] -- small world!
    Here's a brief summary:
    Typically, we do not remove domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests. Instead, we de-blacklist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopaedic value in support of our encyclopaedia pages. If such an editor asks to use your links, I'm sure the request will be carefully considered and your links may well be removed.
    The global blacklist is used by more than just our 700+ Wikimedia Foundation wikis (Wikipedias, Wiktionaries, etc.). All 3000+ Wikia wikis plus a substantial percentage of the 25,000+ unrelated wikis that run on our MediaWiki software have chosen to incorporate this blacklist in their own spam filtering. Each wiki has a local "whitelist" which overrides the global blacklist for that project only. Some of the non-Wikimedia sites may be interested in your links; by all means feel free to request local whitelisting on those.
    Unlike Wikipedia, DMOZ is a web directory specifically designed to categorize and list all Internet sites; if you've not already gotten your sites listed there, I encourage you to do so -- it's a more appropriate venue for your links than our wikis. Their web address: http://www.dmoz.org/.
    Should you find yourself penalized in any search engine rankings and you believe that to be a result of blacklisting here, you should deal directly with the search engine's staff. We do not have any arrangements with any of the search engine companies; if they're using our blacklist it's purely on their own initiative.
    no Declined --A. B. (talk • contribs) 17:25, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approve my link

    http://ezine articles com/?Native-Americans-Conquer-Europe!&id=1378490 Will the admins. approve my link to the ezine article web site news release on a small social group of Native American descendants in Europe (Germany)? The link was a reliable source to be included as a contribution in the Ethnic groups in Europe page I was reediting. Thanks. + Mike D 26 (talk) 21:06, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This request was misfiled; transferring to the correct location. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done; ezinearticles.com is not considered a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    HosurOnline.com - whitelist request

    I here by request you to consider whitelisting the site HosurOnline.com. The site never spammed wiki, instead it was otherwise. No link is proposed to be added to wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.92.50.134 (talk) 08:33, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This request was misfiled; transferring to the correct location. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    According to our records, the site was, in fact, spammed (see details). Anyway, if you don't propose to add a link, what do you need a whitelisting for? no Declined. Stifle (talk) 09:04, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    TVRage.Com

    The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    I've been looking from the sidelines to see if this issue would resolve itself but after coming across [5] I would like to resolve some of the misconceptions. Firstly, I am the owner of TVRage.com and not JohnQ.Public. I firmly agree with your disapproval of his actions on Wikipedia, and he was stripped of all his access for this reason. He no longer has any affiliation with TVRage.com, and his blog claiming TVRage.com is a collection of stolen information is just the rantings of a disgruntled former admin whose departure was not his choice. The mentioned forum links are mostly from 2005 and were created when TVRage was started. There was a ping-pong game of old TV.com members and TVRage members trying to beat each other, however the TVRage.com website had no part in it and I would finally like to make the appeal to remove TVRage.com from the Wikipedia blacklist, keeping in mind the above mentioned corrections. TVRage.com holds over 18500 TV-shows, a lot of those are not listed on IMDb.com or TV.com while we have detailed information about them. Like wikipedia, TVRage.com is a website where everyone can contribute, but we also have dedicated members who scout the schedules of foreign countries and keep them up to date on TVRage. If you still decide to keep us blacklisted with this information I can find it acceptable, I just hope in time you will, as many others already do, see it as a reliable source of information, we have dozens of shows where you will find no equal on Internet on the information we provide. and not only that we have a free API center http://services dot tvrage.Com which has over 6 million requests, so hundreds of websites and applications depend on our data, i don't see any reason why tvrage should be kept banned from wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.235.155.130 (talk) 19:18, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We typically do not whitelist domains from the spam blacklist in response to site-owners' requests, rather we whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages. Despite the seriously disturbing abuse, TVRage.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias other specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines.
    • quote:"Like wikipedia, TVRage.com is a website where everyone can contribute"
    Unfortunatly TVRage.com is not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight, anyone can contribute (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published. --Hu12 (talk) 19:44, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    We get our information directly from press sites of tv shows and research the submissions made and if we find editors who are not doing their job well or whose submissions are in question we remove them at once, and the majority of our big editors also get their information direclty from watching the television show, i don't see it getting anymore reliable then this— 62.235.155.130 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 19:59, 16 October 2009 (UTC).
    For what reason does TVRage fail the approved/non-approved link criteria? Content can vary from show page to show page, but many show pages contain neutral and accurate material that cannot be integrated at Wikipedia... due to copyright reasons and amount of detail. In many cases TVRage proves a unique resource beyond what an article would contain if it became a featured article at Wikipedia. TVRage is not an "open wiki." It has editorial oversight: this can be verified and tested. What is the basis for the assertion it has no editorial oversight? Nor does it fit the posted criteria of "self-published sources." "Verifiability" is hard to judge, since this seems to apply to facts posted directly onto Wikipedia. This isn't a proposal to create a TVRage article with facts which may or may not be verified, but rather to use it as appropriate for external links. Many pages here have external links to (for instance) print media fan magazines and articles by fans of a series. If a fan magazine site can be posted as an external link, it doesn't seem that the verifiability policy applies to external links. Also, it's a simplified statement to say that "everyone/anyone can contribute." First you have to be a member. Second, your submissions have to undergo editorial review before being approved (as opposed to sites that review after the submission is in the system, i.e., Wikipedia itself). And third, sources must be provided. --173.22.212.213 (talk) 20:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia relies on reliable, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The threshold for inclusion is verifiability, whether material has already been published by a "Verifiable Reliable Source". Your site may get its info from reliable sources (as does wikipedia), however it is not a reliable source in of itself. Additionaly, editorial oversight involves considerably more than account at TVRage and a computer. Unfortunatly TVRage.com is not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight, anyone can contribute (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published.--Hu12 (talk) 20:39, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, editorial oversight at TVRage is considerably more than having an account at TVRage and a computer. This assertion can be tested and verified. But okay... so can someone request a blacklist of existing external links on Wikipedia, that fail to meet the criteria, the same way that TVRage and Wikipedia fail to meet the criteria? I believe the concern here is inconsistency. For instance, while IMDB gets some of its information from reliable sources (which wouldn't make a difference anyway, as stated above), much of its TV content is volunteer-contributor driven, there is no editorial oversight, and anyone can contribute. They are not particularly reliable on the TV side of things: I correct errors there every week, using aired episodes as sources. Or is it simply a matter of enough Wiki editors deciding that IMDB is reliable (even though it isn't) that it becomes considered as "reliable" at Wikipedia?
    Well, 4 years ago a rogue editor spammed wikipedia with links and we kicked him out, i was hoping in those 4 years the issue would resolve itself but thats why i decided to try and get it unblocked myself, i'm not requesting that in every show a tvrage link exist I just would like the option where visitors can add a link without it being banned if they feel tvrage has more information to provide about that show, i can give you a list of 20+ shows where nowhere on the internet it comes close to having the same kind of information, our main editors are top of the notch and double check everything, that is how our site is it's own fact checked by our admin staff, we look up before we approve any submission and kick out those who steal from other websites. Seems unfair that tvrage is banned while so many other less accurate sites are not on the blacklist --173.22.212.213 (talk) 20:53, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The question is really this. How does TVRage fail the criteria when other sites like IMDB, epguides.com, open wikis, and TV.com do not? You have template to add epguide links, but they now get half their information from TVRage. You allow epguides, but not epguides' source? Sometimes you have two links to the same TV.com page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Return_of_Jezebel_James). You have links to wikis (here; here; and here). Even though your own criteria say open wikis are discouraged. The only remaining factor for exclusion is that Wikipedia editors have to make the request to remove the blacklist. However, if there are already comparable sites that aren't blacklisted, why would any editor make that request? In conclusion, four years ago some jerks came over here and violated TVRage's own policy by spamming on its behalf. They're long gone, but how long does their legacy have to remain? All that's asked is that TVRage and any other comparable sites be treated no better and no worse than the open wikis that Wikipedia is okay with having here as external links. The staff at TVRage is more than willing to work with Wikipedia to prevent mass spam-posting of TVRage links. We don't want mediocre/average pages linked here any more than Wikipedia does. --173.22.212.213 (talk) 22:09, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    as you might of notices, epguides links to tvrage 50% of the time now because they find us more reliable then tv.com, tv.com has become an advertisement extension for CBS now that hey have taken it over, is it so hard to believe that after the initial period of a few months where we started and that members form tvrage vs tv.com went a little overboard and that is now all in the past. here for example is a list of shows that have equal or more information anywhere on the net http://www.cowlord.com/tvrage.txt and not only that TVRage has the most up to date UK schedule on the net. so again i ask are these reasons not enough to at least unban it, no ill will is intended towards wikipedia. we are simply asking for a second chance, nobody on tvrage now will abuse the link section again. if visitors see tvrage has more to offer they can add a link and it can always be removed if they disagree, the one person that kept hammering for the links to be kept on is no longer there, don't punish the entire tvrage.com website for a bad decision made 4 years go by adding John.Q.Public as a staff member.
    The issue isn't TV.com per se. Open wikis here are listed quite often despite the verifiability policy says they shouldn't be. IMDB gets listed. Fan magazines get listed. TVRage meets all the criteria and more than those do. The main reason TVRage appears to have been blacklisted is because some no-longer-members were jerks. Point granted. Now, how can that be overcome? Hopefully, Wikipedia staff are not saying that TVRage is trapped on the blacklist because high-volume editors don't use us because we're blacklisted! --173.22.212.213 (talk) 22:38, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also, just to note, Wikipedia also allows external links to reviews. How does that jibe with the Verifiability and Self-Publishing issues cited above?--173.22.212.213 (talk) 22:45, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'd also note that as someone who tracks cast and crew on the TV series Smallville for several sites, IMDB for tonight's episode listed one actor who didn't appear at all, and another they claimed was "uncredited" when he was credited. Now, this isn't to say that you should remove all the IMDB links. I'm just saying that they don't seem to meet the standards of Verifiable and Reliable source standards that Wikipedia staff cite. (Well that, and TVRage wouldn't make such an amateur mistake :) ) If TVRage meets or exceeds the standards of other sites that you say are verifiable and reliable sources, then those factors aren't relevant. TVRage wasn't blacklisted because of a lack of editor usage, so that shouldn't be a factor in whitelisting. That leaves the spamming. Since that appears to be the sole relevant consideration for blacklisting, then shouldn't it be the sole concern for whitelisting? --173.22.212.213 (talk) 09:06, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    In addition to failing "Wikipedias" inclusion criteria described above, the previous facts still remain;
    • Massive Meatpuppetry;
    • Widespread disruption;
    • gross incivility;
    • persistent vandalism;
    • harassment;
    • persistent spamming;
    • Multiple requests/discussions and declines all with no consensus in favor of these links;
    • process abuse -massive sock/meatpuppetry in deletion discussions;
    • process abuse - Bad faith nominations of other articles (ie. TV.com[6]);
    • accounts used exclusively for disruptive purposes, such as vandalism;
    • Multiple instances of off wiki canvassing for inclusion at tvrage and elswere including pettitions([[7]);
    • persistently violating other policies or guidelines.
    There are plenty of other Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available. Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like. Untill that time, those are the policies. The bigger picture clearly shows someone who is continuing to use Wikipedia to promote their own interests, not wikipedias. If a specific link is needed, a trusted, established editor (without a conflict of interest) may request it on a case-by-case basis, where a url can be demonstrated as an appropriate source. Wholesale whitelisting of the entire domain, as requested is no Declined.--Hu12 (talk) 15:16, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    So thats it, website members make a mistake 4 years ago and it's banned from wikipedia forever? seems illogical, all those members who did that are gone all thats left is a site that has more information as tv.com, more information then any site on UK television and is in most cases most accurate then IMDB. plus we have over 2.4m visitors a month unique and not to mention the fact hundreds of websites and applications use our API services as their source they seem to find it reliable enough to generate over 6million feed requests a day. i will do a whitelist request every 3 months if that's not to much of a bother to you. but this is certainly not a case of which is in the best interest of wikipedia or the website in question, all the big websites have no problem having links added, you use to have a special tv.Com id option and before that tvtome.com id option, just doesn't make sense to me at all. guess the companies who are more likely to donate to your website have a better chance of not being blacklisted forever —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.164.159.249 (talk) 16:42, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    "The previous facts" are now 2+ years out of date. To repeat the question, given that all the persons involved are long gone (and a petition is cited that doesn't belong to any member of TVRage [[8]), at what point can that be disregarded? And given that IMDB at least fails the reliable and verifiable standards, what other sources are available? But... apparently TVRage should now approach editors individually? Otherwise it's not clear what "Editors make the policies here at Wikipedia, feel free to to try and change those policies if you like."--173.22.212.213 (talk) 17:04, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I concur with Hu12's decision,. When a trusted, established editor places a request for whitelisting of one or more pages, the request will be considered. This is  Denied. Stifle (talk) 19:33, 17 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Given that the notes above say that comments should be posted on the current discussion page, and this is the current discussion page... I'd like to add a few points of clarification. The spamming that occurred 2-4 years ago was only on ELs. My understanding is that the original poster is only asking about whitelisting of TVRage as an EL, on a limited or site-wide basis. And TVRage falls under WP:ELMAYBE #4 "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Also, above it was not cited which bullet item(s) that "TVRage.com is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias other specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy." Staff clarifying under which bullet item(s) it fails instead of making blanket statements would go a long way to avoid confusion and avoid repetition of appeals in future. Discussion about whether TVRage is a verifiable or reliable source seems redundant since it has never apparently been submitted as a source, only as an EL. And there's no expressed interest in getting it whitelisted as a source. So why the repeated emphasis for rejection on Wikipedia's source standards? This has made the discussion longer and more confusing than it needs to be. In any case, the criteria that a trusted, established editor must make the request is understood. However, that, and the seemingly-obsolete spam incidents appear to be the only reasons for rejection of the whitelist request. Yes? No? --Gadflyr (talk) 07:16, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I also concur with Hu12's reasoning. For the last time,  Denied. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:18, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Whitelist approval please

    Please could you whitelist wgimpressionists.co.cc please, I would like to add the link wgimpressionists.co.cc/periods/impressionism.html to the impressionism page on this site as the site contains vast information on the subject including pictures/artist information etc. Thanks in advance. Tim —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pimpingeezer (talk • contribs) 16:39, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This request was misfiled; transferring to the correct location. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Can you please advise what makes this site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 09:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 15:45, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    infodriveindia.com

    Please add this to the whitelist. This website was originally referred to in en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tariff as www.infodriveindia.in/Indian-Customs-Duty/Default.aspx but apparently they moved to infodriveindia.com. Somehow infodriveindia.com is blacklisted though. --MickPerez (talk) 11:57, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This page is for requesting that one or a few pages from a blacklisted site be permitted. You need to specify which pages you want to link. If you want the site removed from the blacklist entirely, you need MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Stifle (talk) 21:07, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably due to this and this and a Blacklist removal denial. Seems to have been mass spammed and is a Link normally to be avoided. --Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I've removed the dead link from the article, it doesnt seem to be included for verifying article content. The .com version is "India Customs and Import duties" and is too country specific for such a broad topic. while it may be related, its not within the scope of being relevent. When sites go down it best to just remove the link. thanks--Hu12 (talk) 21:14, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems infodriveindia.in was added to wikipedia the same way the .com version was, see Rakesh101 (talk · contribs). --Hu12 (talk) 21:39, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    astronauticsnow.com

    When attempting to reference this site, spefically the page at astronauticsnow.com/ENA/index.html the page will not save due to blocking of astronauticsnow.com

    I cannot find this site on any of the black lists - when I used seth's tool above, I found a match list: en-wikipedia blacklist * \bastro(?:nauticsnow|sauce)\.com\b so perhaps there is an overlap with a legitimately blocked site.

    I want to reverence astronauticsnow.com/ENA/index.html on the wiki page Energetic Neutral Atoms. This is a relatively new topic in space plasma physics and without this reference, most of the 'meaty' material on the page has only one source. The owner of this page, a professor at USC, is cited in my most authoritative reference and his page contains numerous links to his published papers on the topic. I would also like to reference astronauticsnow.com/mg_pubs/gruntman_rsi_1997.pdf or astronauticsnow.com/ENA/ena_rsi_1997.html and perhaps some other of the published papers.

    Thanks vm. Canuck100 (talk) 18:13, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll whitelist these three,
    • http://astronauticsnow.com/ENA/index.html
    • http://astronauticsnow.com/mg_pubs/gruntman_rsi_1997.pdf
    • astronauticsnow.com/ENA/ena_rsi_1997.html
     Done. Could it be possible to clean up the "Links" section in Energetic neutral atom, perhaps incorporate them into the article as references? thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:00, 24 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    feildingfalcons.co.cc

    The address "www dot feildingfalcons dot co dot cc" is blocked and can't be used on a Wikipedia page. This URL points to the official website for the Feilding Falcons Rugby League Club, a member of the Manawatu Rugby League so we would like to be able to include this link on the Wikipedia page for Manawatu Rugby League. The entire site would be useful to interested parties so it would be appropriate for the link on Wikipedia to open the home page. I hope this is the information you're after (forgive our lack of knowledge in this area!). Thanks, Vicki and Bryan - Feilding Falcons 222.155.70.149 (talk) 05:51, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you please provide the exact link to the home page? Is it an index.html or about.html? Stifle (talk) 14:28, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm not sure whether this is what you're after but the URL we use to navigate to the home page is www dot feildingfalcons dot co dot cc/# 222.155.87.135 (talk) 09:31, 16 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I propose to whitelist feildingfalcons.co.cc/index.php, will that be satisfactory? Stifle (talk) 13:44, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    That would be perfect. Thank you 222.155.64.48 (talk) 01:30, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    www.sulekha.com

    The domain sulekha.com was blacklisted on 8th march 2007, because the article about the company sulekha was banned due to the spamming of the domain, sulekha.com. I started the article up again and with the help of contributers have completed the page. If you White list the URL people who visit Sulekha can visit the website through wikipedia. The url will be used only twice on that page and once on another upcoming page. I ask of the admins to advice on what to do. Spamming will not occur again if white listed. Thanks for your time Syler.mi4 (talk) 17:03, 17 September 2009 (UTC) the link that has to be added is www.sulekha.com, the web site has no ad ware/spy ware and only provides information, and has only one pop up which asks the user which city he/she wants information in (no pop ups after that unless user navigates much deeper) and those are info pop ups. I sincerely hope that the website will have no issues in getting white listed. Syler.mi4 (talk) 17:11, 17 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • I propose to whitelist www.sulekha.com/collateral/about.aspx. How would that sound? Stifle (talk) 13:46, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Yeah that would be great thanks a lot Stifle, your the best. Syler.mi4 (talk) 11:53, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Also i request permission to use the www.sulekha.com/collateral/about.aspx page as a refrence in the article. I hope thats ok.Syler.mi4 (talk) 07:18, 21 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Done Stifle (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied Requests

    www.BernardManning.co.cc 2009/10/08 Bernard_Manning

    I understand Co.cc is a blocked domain but could Mine be accepted as its the only Bernard Manning forum on the net at the moment and would like to share this forum with everybody on the net enjoy the comical genius's site.. i hope you can unblock this site as its no a spam site just a regular forum for fans... thanks in advance R.I.P Bernard manning The page i would like it to be published on is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernard_Manning in the external links, thanks again —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.2.203.26 (talk) 19:01, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done, fails WP:RS and WP:ELNO. Stifle (talk) 09:54, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.moneymorning.com/2009/10/02/gold-prices-7/

    Why this is blacklisted, I don't know. It is a clean news site that publishes small articles on economic and monetary policy. An article that would benefit is [[Peter Schiff], as he publishes a few oped pieces such as [www.moneymorning.com/2009/10/02/gold-prices-7/ this one]. Smallman12q (talk) 00:11, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The site appears to be one of many involved in a massive spamming effort some time back. It is listed here under "Agora Publishing spam on Wikipedia. --Ckatzchatspy 03:43, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't aware... it doesn't seem they are associated with Agora Publishing any longer though. Any chance they can be taken off the list?Smallman12q (talk) 23:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I[t] appears they are indeed still affiliated, via Money Map Press, listed here: www.agora-inc.com/subsidiaries-affiliates. OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:39, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Spamming aside, how is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 10:20, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Well Peter Schiff is a "periodic contributor to Money Morning" per www.moneymorning.com/2009/10/02/gold-prices-7/ . It also states that money map press and money morning have over 500,000 readers in over 30 countries. www.moneymorning.com/contributors/ . It's contributors appear well qualified...it looks like a reliable source...am I not seeing something?Smallman12q (talk) 23:51, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Any response?Smallman12q (talk) 19:48, 7 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Still waiting...Smallman12q (talk) 11:58, 10 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    A response would be nice...Smallman12q (talk) 00:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done No one has been convinced that there is a compelling reason to whitelist this link. OhNoitsJamie Talk 04:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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 [9]).[10].
    • 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]

    • Closing this as  Not done Stifle (talk) 13:48, 19 September 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]

    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 (and whitelisting the entire domain would have the effect of whitelisting 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]
    The homepage is whitelisted http://www.lulu.com/en/index.php for use in Lulu (company). I see quite a bit of linking in there to "lulu_basics". I'd consider the possible whitelisting of www.lulu.com/en/help/lulu_basics only if the large ammount of self linking/referencing isnt creating undu weight or turning the article into a Guide for lulu.com. Looking at the first eight references, all are to "lulu_basics". Woulden't it be prefferable to turn those references into content supported by 3rd party sources? --Hu12 (talk) 16:21, 4 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it would. Stifle (talk) 16:01, 6 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I was hoping to have the link to my self-published book at lulu unblocked for including on my userpage only. I have the amazon.com link established, but I would rather have the lulu.com link instead. Is this permissable? Oatley2112 (talk) 23:21, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Whitelist entries are intended for using links in articles. Every new entry puts additional load in the server (the whole list has to be parsed every time someone tries to save an edit), so I don't think that this usage is adequate. We are writing an encyclopedia so resources should be directed towards links that directly improve articles. --Enric Naval (talk) 02:42, 15 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 13:47, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    recordstore.co.uk

    Why is this url blocked? I tried to add a page on this site as a reference to confirm that a record by a uk band will be released as a single. It is a valid store in the uk and may have been blocked because of its generic name.

    I was trying to add a reference after the statement "The Captain is to be the third single" on the page; The Captain. This single is now available to pre order from recordstore.co.uk which proves that it will be released. windybob101 (talk) 16:01, 14 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    This is clearly a Link normally to be avoided. A google news search shows a few mentions of what your looking for. I'm sure there are reasonable Reliable and Verifiable alternatives available than some "pre order" sales site?--Hu12 (talk) 18:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done, please cite a reliable source rather than a random store. I own a webstore and can put something on pre-order there in about a minute and a half, but that proves nothing. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 19 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.galatta.com

    This site is currently blacklisted and can't be used on Wikipedia. But this site gives many useful information regarding Indian cinema and personalities and I don't know, why this has been blacklisted.

    However, I would like to use one very useful link from the site on wikipedia, that is: galatta.com/entertainment/halloffame/linda23.asp

    The link can be used on the article of Linda Arsenio as it gives personal and biographical information about her, which cannot be found anywhere else in the internet. So requesting you to whitelist this site, so it can be used here. Thank you! Johannes003 (talk) 09:13, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you please explain what makes the site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 15:34, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, the facts mentioned there were disclosed by Linda Arsenio herself, while being on "Galatta's chat", so they are true. (You may check the images on the site as well, which show Linda during the chat at the Galatta office!) Moreover, "Galatta" is a reliable publisher, since they are the media partner to many films. I don't see any reasons for blacklisting this site as it has no ad- or spyware either. What is, actually, the reason for blocking this site? Johannes003 (talk) 17:10, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok, after intensive searching I found a site, which reveals, more or less, the same information: http://www.naachgaana.com/2006/12/12/kabul-express-press-kit/ (see under point 17!) I hope, this clarifies your doubt and proves, that the facts disclosed there, are indeed true. Johannes003 (talk) 17:28, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • Great, you can cite that website, which is not blocked, instead.  Not done Stifle (talk) 14:21, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.tablu.co.cc

    Hi there, I would like to whitelist tablu.co.cc please. This link for for a weblog (which is being done up by me), and that's the only external link to the main site in the article on Tablu. Thank you for your time! Transope (talk) 15:06, 20 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.expo2010china.hu (English)

    I tried to add the links to Expo 2010 Shanghai China page to the external links, but I couldn't. It is a cool site, with more news then the Official site (www.expo2010.cn) I think it compeletes the Chinese official site. There is an ExpoForum and lots of pictures about the participiant' pavilions. So please check the site again and kindly whitelist it.— ExpoForum (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 13:40, 25 September 2009 (UTC).

    serious abuse and related to the shanghai2010.hu spam case. Additionaly expo2010china.hu fails the multiple requirements of the External Links policy and both the Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Thirdly, we do not whitelist domains in response to site-representatives' requests. Ie. (ExpoForum (talk · contribs)). Instead, we whitelist sites when trusted, high-volume editors request the use of blacklisted links because of their encyclopedic value in support of our encyclopedia pages.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 16:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.seaweedking.co.cc

    Why is this url blocked? I tried to add a page on this site as a reference to improve the link for personal information on seaweedking site. It is a valid and legal for all and not support to block or in black list. thank you.— Seaweed king (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 05:33, 25 September 2009 (UTC).[reply]

     Not done, username blocked, clearly a site-representative request.--Hu12 (talk) 16:07, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    deconet.com/decopedia/

    Deconet.com/decopedia is currently blacklisted for spam reasons. There must be an error because Decopedia is an authoritative site on modern design furniture and decorative arts images, designers and makers. Decopedia is a dictionary for everything that's related to Modern Design. It can provide Wikipedia’s visitors with answers to a lot of designer related questions. Decopedia is visited by some 80,000 people a month, originating from a total of 175 countries. I think that Decopedia (deconet.com/decopedia/) should be whitelisted because it provides information, images and reference prices of thousands of Modern Design objects, designers and makers. Visitors can search for any modern designer, maker or object of choice to view and learn more about background, visions or famous creations. Adding the Decopedia URL to the external links of some Wikipedia articles should bring valuable additional information to Wikipedia readers. When relevant, Decopedia provides links to Deconet, a Marketplace for Modern Design, where visitors are able to view some of the objects for sale. I don't think that this should be a reason for black-listing.

    Just to name a few pages that would benefit from the addition of a link, see the following examples: Modern Design, Mid Century modern, Jugend, Art Deco, Art Nouveau, 20th Century Design, Retro, Vintage, Post war design, Efterkrigsdesign, Skandinavisk design, auktion, auction, Sjuan, Seven series, Egg chair, PH-lampa, Myran, Ant Chair, Svanen, Swan chair, Ox chair, Diamond chair, graal, ravenna, septima, kotten, kogeln, Artichoke, Farsta, Argenta, Reptil, Domino, Veckla, Taraxacum, Fazzoletto, Murano, Battuto, Pezzato, Barcelona, 7an, 7-an, Pk22, PK-22, Lundin apple, tulip chair, Memphis, Alvar Aalto, Greta Grossman, Eero Arnio, Gunnar Asplund, Josef Frank, Finn Juhl, Poul Kjaerholm, Jonas Bohlin, Mats Theselius, Gio Ponti, Carl Malmsten, Bruno Mathsson, Börge Mogensen, Verner Panton, Sigurd Persson, Eero Saarinen, Timo Sarpaneva, Hans Wegner,Hans J. Wegner, Tapio Wirkkala, Arne Jacobsen, Börge Mogensen, Ole Wanscher, Carl Axel Acking, Le Corbusier, Cassina, Arne Jacobsen, Fritz Hansen, Artek, Bodil Kjaer, Svenskt Tenn, Harry Bertoia, Charles Eames, Thonet, Wilhelm Kåge, Gustavsberg, Wilhelm Kage, Berndt Friberg, Stig Lindberg, Vicke Lindstrand, Carl-Harry Stålhane, Erich and Ingrid Triller, Tobo, Arne Vodder, Axel Salto, Royal Copenhagen, Kosta, Orrefors, Nils Landberg, Simon Gate, Edvard Hald, Venini Murano, Iittala, Sven Palmquist, Kosta Boda, Ingeborg Lundin, Timo Sarpaneva, Wiwen Nilsson, Henning Koppel, Herbert Krenchel, Hagenauer, Krenit, Yrjö Kukkapuro, Yki Nummi, Poul Henningsen, Louis Poulsen, Contemporary design, Scandinavian design, design furniture, Danish modern, Danish furniture, Skandinavischer design, Design Scandinave, Scandinavian furniture, 20th century furniture, midcentury furniture, contemporary furniture.

    The links that I want whitelisted are thus all based on the following link: === deconet.com/ === deconet.com/decopedia/designer/all deconet.com/decopedia/maker/all deconet.com/decopedia/object/all

    Thanks beforehand. Deconet (talk) 13:43, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    *deconet.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
     Not done We typically don't whitelist sites at the request of site owners. We don't allow link canvassing either, as you proposed. See WP:COI. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:55, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.associatedcontent.com

    The website holds great references, and I don't understand why it's blocked. Jeremjay24 22:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    See WikiProject Spam report / Administrators' noticeboard
    Associated Content links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are essentially self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 19:09, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    pmhsband.co.cc

    This site is for my school's band. Our old site was http://www.psdnet.org/pmhsband and that wasn't blocked. We left our school servers to create a new site that gave us more user control. I plan to replace the link in the marching band section of this wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pennsville_High_School. I'm guessing it's the co.cc that is blocked so could you please unblock just the pmhsband.co.cc. Thanks :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.82.219.134 (talk) 07:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done; unblocking will be considered on the application of an established editor. Stifle (talk) 14:22, 4 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    ekamus.uni.cc

    This is an online malay chinese dictionary. Previously accessible through the URL ekamus.servsuit.com. Now the webmaster is using the free domain name uni.cc, but this domain seem to be blocked by wikipedia, including English (en.wikpedia.org), Malay (ms.wikpedia.org) and Chinese (zh.wikipedia.org) versions of wikipedia. Please unblock the url (ekamus.uni.cc/index.php) as the website is useful for those who are learning Malay language. Thanks! 161.142.24.130 (talk) 04:21, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    To what Wikipedia article(s) do you propose to add this link, and what benefits will it bring to that article? Stifle (talk) 10:18, 5 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    For your information, I am the webmaster of that website. I am not proposing to add new link, but editing the old link instead.
    The old link http://ekamus.servsuit.com (which already appear in the following wikipedia articles) will not be able to access from 10th October onward after servsuit company decided to end their free web hosting service.
    This is a list of wikipedia articles where the link is proposed to edit.
    Its nothing more than a Chinese Online Dictionary (ekamus).
    Adsense pub-0535671605882222
    Accounts
    Zfc89 (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)
    161.142.24.130 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    60.50.93.240 (talk • contribs • deleted contribs • blacklist hits • AbuseLog • what links to user page • COIBot • Spamcheck • count • block log • x-wiki • Edit filter search • WHOIS • RDNS • tracert • robtex.com • StopForumSpam • Google • AboutUs • Project HoneyPot)
    simple:Special:Contributions/60.50.93.240
    ms:Special:Contributions/60.50.93.240
    I don't see how this can be used as a citation to verify english content. Additionaly the site appears to be using someone elses Search Hosting service (picosearch.com). Doesn't seem to be a reasonable Reliable and Verifiable source. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote an adsense site.--Hu12 (talk) 19:41, 6 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied Stifle (talk) 09:53, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems


    Discussion

    This is a very low-traffic page, perhaps we should open a process for it in the Wikipedia namespace. Stifle (talk) 14:54, 25 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

    Other projects with active whitelists

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

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=321782532"