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 17:44, 28 December 2009 (→‎Request to whitelist single page ingles-markets.com for article Ingles: 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|334581240#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)


    http://revelationspace dot free forums dot org

    (above address could not be included in its regular form because it is blacklisted, so I used "dot" instead of "."

    To be used on pages:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alastair_Reynolds

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Revelation_Space

    ...and other pages associated with the Revelation Space universe.

    I'm assuming the problem is with the forum host, but I'd ask that editors of this page please follow the link where you can see that it is a legitimate fan forum, with several ongoing discussions of this author's work. And more importantly, it appears to be the only fan forum for this author, who is a popular science fiction writer in Europe and the U.S.

    I also included (in the same edit) links to book reviews, and hope to add more information on Revelation Space because that entry (and several associated with it) are tagged as requiring more work. Thank you for your time. Stormstrike (talk) 09:01, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, forums are not considered to be reliable sources. Stifle (talk) 09:50, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    No one's making the case for whether the forum is a "reliable source." I'm not attempting to source any of the material in the article to the forum -- I simply want to put a link to the forum under "External links" so readers interested in Alastair Reynolds and the Revelation Space universe can join in on discussions about the books if they'd like to, and read information about short stories written by Mr. Reynolds.

    There are thousands upon thousands of wikipedia entries that have External links to discussion boards and fan sites for various authors, artists and musicians. Notice how the entry for Iain M. Banks (a very similar author of space opera) includes a link a fan site with forums -- that's all I'm asking.

    Please read this request carefully, as again, I am not asking to source anything to the forum. Stormstrike (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunatly forums, fansites and social networking sites are all Links normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. As to pointing out that other articles have forum links, doesn't make for an exception that this link should also be included.--Hu12 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for the link. I read the relevant section, and it seems the main focus of those external "links to be avoided" are things like Myspace, Usenet groups, Yahoo groups, etc. I can understand that.

    But in this case, we are talking about the only existing forum and news site for Alastair Reynolds, a British science fiction author. This forum is not only a discussion place, it is also an author-specific news site where information on the author's new stories and collections are posted. Again, nothing is to be sourced to that forum: I simply want to include it for folks who may want to discuss his work and read more about his novels and short stories.

    I'm having a hard time understanding how this would lower the quality of the associated Wikipedia pages. I've started cleaning up some of those Reynolds pages, and most of them have very few links to external sources. Including such a link would actually be useful to people who enjoyed reading Mr. Reynolds's books, since the author only maintains a blog (which is not really focused on the books) and there is no "official site" for the series.

    It seems the distinction here is about including information vs not including information. On such sparse entries, it's hard to see how a single relevant, small link would increase Wikipedia's noise ratio. Again, I really feel the information would be enormously helpful to folks interested in the subject matter. One other thing to note is that the link *was* allowed while the forum/news site had its own domain -- is that some sort of threshhold for inclusion? That seems a bit inconsistent. Stormstrike (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Request to whitelist singe page from ehow

    I would like to white list the single page http://www (dot) ehow (dot) com/how_5483336_start-wakesurfing.html for the wakesurfing article. Many of the links on that page are purely spam (ex. midwest wakesurf, which is a site that sells boards and has no information) and I believe this article has good information that goes more in depth than a wikipedia article would. I would use it as a reference for a section other than an external link. All of its information has been checked out by references in that site. Assed206 (talk) 13:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    eHow.com links
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    no Declined.
    Additionaly
    ...it appears that the author of the article your requesting, notes his home page is "go-college.webs.com" (Adsense pub-0189838191925575). , which you've added to wikipedia twice[1][2] ( as did IP 74.138.50.226 (talk · contribs)). Its quite unusual to find users adding or requesting multiple sites related to a particular user. Other questionable edits involve this suggestion, to a site with no forum members or posts. then actualy adding it to another article. There appears to be a pattern of Source soliciting a site you've "found" then adding it over multiple articles[3][4][5][6][7][8], as with tech2classroom.com (Adsense pub-0189838191925575). You're here to improve Wikipedia -- not just to promote these sites right? --Hu12 (talk) 15:34, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am here to improve wikipedia, and have no connections to IP address 74.138.50.226 (talk · contribs). The World War I page with the tech2classroom.com subdomain was unblocked for me to have that site on there, as it is a historical reference. I would like to request that it gets reposted, as it is a good site. While I will admit some of the sites do have the same publisher, they are all refernece only. I wont dispute the revoking of the wowcrossroads site or ehow, but the other two are very informational. From here on I will try to stay only on posting text, not links. Thank you.


    Request to whitelist two pages from xvideos

    A wikipedia member has been engaged in an editing war for weeks now on the page for Cytherea. The issue is whether Cytherea "squirts" or does "female ejaculation." The discussion page has concluded "squirting" is appropriate, as "female ejaculation" is a controversial and unsourced claim of a live person. To further verify the assertion "squirting" the following two pages should be unblocked: (1) www.xvideos.com/video17419/cytherea_squirting_goddess . This short video clearly shows what she does--no further disagreement will be possible. It further disproves the claim that it is "female ejaculation," as it does not conform to that activity as described by the wikipedia page on the subject (volume is the problem). Note also that this clip does not constitute an "unreliable source," as it is the video itself that is the source, not commentary about it. (2) www.xvideos.com/?k=cytherea . This is a search page for Cytherea from the same website. It shows multiple listings for videos of "Cytherea squirting" and none of her "female ejaculation." In the interest of accuracy and thoroughness, in this case these pages should be allowed. 98.111.156.115 (talk) 13:43, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems there is a long term edit war occuring on Cytherea (person) with IP's closely related to yours.
    98.111.156.115 (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)
    98.111.173.30 (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)
    98.111.157.9 (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)
    98.111.176.215 (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)
    Considering the history of xvideos.com and the edit war occuring, its best to mark this as  Not done until clearer heads prevail. Both appear to fail our linking guidelines --Hu12 (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist news column

    I am aware that examiner.com is blacklisted, but I am a writer with Examiner and solely write news articles on Alexander Skarsgard. I think it would beneficial because visitors can view the latest news on him. My link I am requesting to be whitelisted:

    (I left out the http://www.) examiner.com/x-29830-Alexander-Skarsgard-Examiner

    To be used on page:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alexander_Skarsg%C3%A5rd

    99.144.217.245 (talk) 20:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think you are more concerned about driving traffic to your page and making yourself some money.  Denied Stifle (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You don't have to be rude about it, a simple yes or no would have been acceptable. Of course I am trying to generate traffic, wouldn't you? Thanks anyway. 99.144.217.245 (talk) 20:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist two pages of Associated Content website

    Respectful request to use two blacklisted pages as reference for Jimi Hendrix article. It appears to be a well sourced, and coherent article:

    Page 1 www.associatedcontent.com/article/213540/judgment_paid_in_hendrix_litigation.html?cat=17

    Page 2 www.associatedcontent.com/article/213540/judgment_paid_in_hendrix_litigation_pg2.html?cat=17

    --Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 15:24, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Associatedcontent.com contains self-published articles and is not considered a reliable source. For controversial information like this, I would not be happy with AC as a source. Therefore, I am inclined to deny this request but will leave it open for a week or so in case another admin comes in with a differing opinion. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand. Thanks. And nice job.--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 17:43, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I want to make sure I'm following WP guidelines, if no other administrator approves the content, that means I should remove even the basic unlinked URL. Is that right?--Abie the Fish Peddler (talk) 10:10, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a page of Amazon.com

    I wish to whitelist www.amazon.com/dp/B000AMWIVM/ref=nosim/?tag=dvdverdict2-20 because it is the only available site that includes the special features of the Saw: Uncut Edition DVD, which one of the special features (Full Disclosure Report) is what I am writing on for the List of Saw media article. Without this source, it could be deemed original research. GroundZ3R0 002 (talk) 22:57, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

     Denied, affiliate link. Please link to a normal version of the page without an affiliate link ([9] would do). Stifle (talk) 15:01, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a single page of 4shared.com

    Please could www.4shared.com/file/171301460/57ac6f/LeaguePosition.html be whitelisted. I am posting the link on User talk:BigDom in response to this question on my user talk page. The file being linked to is an Excel spreadsheet that exports a gif file of a chart showing soccer team league progress, similar to the one used at Bristol Rovers F.C. season 2006–07#League progress, and would be useful in illustrating similar articles in the same manner. — Gasheadsteve Talk to me 16:10, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, not necessary for use in an article. Just post the link exactly as you did there on the user's talk page. Stifle (talk) 09:57, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a single page of kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com

    I'd suggest that the following page, which has a useful explanation of the different types of Instant hot water dispenser, be whitelisted. I suggested that the site be whitelisted, but was told that it is in general an undesirable site (MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com) and have no objection to that. The page: http://kitchen-gadgets.suite101.com/article.cfm/home_electric_instant_hot_water_dispensers. See previous discussion linked above for more details and opinions. I word this as a suggestion rather than a request as I think it will be helpful to the article; I don't personally care. Pol098 (talk) 01:17, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am minded to permit this request and will whitelist the link in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 09:58, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Approved Stifle (talk) 12:32, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a single page from z15.invisionfree.com

    I am aware that forums are not considered reliable sources for information, however in this case, I believe the use of it is justified. I wish to be able to use the page z15.invisionfree.com/Frankie_Boyle/index.php?showtopic=263 as it will benefit the Frankie Boyle page as a citation for the section about his podcast, which is currently poorly sourced. Despite the forum itself not being the most reliable of sources, the information is directly quoted from the official Frankie Boyle website, on which no copy of the article remains to be cited. Whilst the source is the forum, the information comes from an official website.

    --TomBeasley (talk) 23:05, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to point out that I haven't ignored or missed this request; I just am undecided. Stifle (talk) 09:38, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a single page from Redtube.com

    I'm posting this here following a suggestion here. There's been an article about Redtube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) for a few weeks, but I notice the site itself is blacklisted. As the article contains independent references which verify a certain degree of notability, I'm wondering whether it might be useful to be able to include a link to the site's main page. Having said that, I have heard of problems involving Redtube in the past, one being that clicking on some of the links can result in the user receiving unwanted pop up windows requesting bill payments, which are locked for a certain amount of time. Any thoughts? TheRetroGuy (talk) 19:11, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    What's the URL of the main page? Stifle (talk) 16:17, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.redtube.com/ TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:18, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I need an index.htm or about.htm page, or similar. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Not sure how to get that. Perhaps someone else can help? TheRetroGuy (talk) 21:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried but I can't get any index page, the age checking thing gets in the middle. I suggest using "\bwww\.redtube\.com\b". --Enric Naval (talk) 06:44, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    That won't do, need a specific landing page. I've been working on this also (ran out of variables), best I can come up with are http://www.redtube.com/?page=1 and http://www.redtube.com/?avID=8&avEnter=1. I'm opting to not use the "enter" code version, however the age check may be skipped in either case.
    I've whitelisted http://www.redtube.com/?page=1 . Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Added to article  Done--Hu12 (talk) 07:39, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the help. Cheers TheRetroGuy (talk) 12:50, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist page freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1551512/posts

    This page has a biography of the Iranian student activist Behrouz Javid Tehrani. Based on comparisons with news articles, the page is accurate, and it is useful because it provides a more complete biography of Tehrani than any other page I saw so far. It looks like the freerepublic.com domain in general has strange/inaccurate information, but this page looks good to me--would it be possible to whitelist it? CordeliaNaismith (talk)

    This appears to be a reasonable request and I will whitelist the page in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 16:18, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Copyvio of [10]. Hipocrite (talk) 16:47, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied per WP:ELNEVER item 1. Stifle (talk) 12:31, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist page www.provenmodels.com/39/technology-typology/woodward

    To link from Joan Woodward. The article not only offers background information on this pioneer woman from academic research, but also includes an interesting appraisal of the her research contributions and findings. The article also includes references to three published items. lxs (talk) 15:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I am inclined to approve this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:35, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist page ezinearticles.com/?Operation-Highjump---Longhaul-Nazi-UFOs-in-Antarctica&id=2114562

    External link from Operation Highjump The page contains a historical interest article on operation highjump that compliments the wiki article. The rest of the website it is hosted on also publishes a lot of interesting content on other topics as well which may benefit other articles, not sure why domain is blocked. But can this page be white listed. --211.27.0.83 (talk) 16:10, 20 December 2009 (UTC)Nathan[reply]

    Doesn't appear to be a reliable source. I am minded to decline this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason to approve it instead. Stifle (talk) 12:34, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined per above--Hu12 (talk) 06:12, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist eu-football.info

    This appears to be a really useful statistics and history site for international football. I originally posted a blacklist request at [11] and was pointed to here. Eldumpo (talk) 17:12, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Hi, has anyone got a view on this? Is there any more information I need to provide - I've not had any involvement with whitelists before. Thanks. Eldumpo (talk) 10:08, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist examiner.com page(s) for article Chris Daly

    I'm trying to revert this edit [12], which is both malformed, preventing subsequent text from displaying properly, and because it is a BLP violation, presenting only one side of a disputed incident and inaccurately reflecting its cited source. The existing article includes multiple links to examiner.com pages regarding the article subject, some or all of which may be legitimately cited as properly identified commentary. I'd just like to see the BLP violation/defective edit removed, but can't do so myself without extensively revising the remainder of the article on any matters involving the questionable site (which would be better done by someone with more knowledge of the article subject, if it's needed. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 19:25, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com:
    • Content has no editorial oversight, articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers financial incentives for authors to increase pageviews
    no Declined Stifle (talk) 09:43, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I believe this is a mistake- the article is NOT from examiner.com. It is from sfgate.com, the offical website for the San Francisco Chronicle. examiner.com and sfgate.com are two entirely separate websites.KermitClown (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist icedearth.freeforums.org

    icedearth.freeforums.org

    This wouldbe a useful link for fans to discuss the band [13]

    87.80.115.46 (talk) 00:53, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined, no benefit to Wikipedia. Stifle (talk) 09:41, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.woodingdeanholycross.co.cc

    Hi. Please would you whitelist the above site address which I wish to add to the 'External Links' section of the article on Woodingdean (a suburb of Brighton and Hove). It is a free non-commercial website for the Parish Church of the village of Woodingdean and is maintained monthly by myself. It provides both historical and current information about the church and it's activities and would be a valuable addition to the information already shown on the Wikipedia page. Thanks in advance for your kind attention to this matter. --Davecc (talk) 12:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see this link on the local or meta blacklist. Have you tried adding it to the article? OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes I have and it is rejected due to a part of it (appears to be the CO.CC bit of the address) being blacklisted.--95.150.140.65 (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Unfortunatly, this and the other link you added are not official sites of the Woodingdean article,, and would appear that adding them would also be a Conflict of interest. Some things to keep in mind before proceding further;
    --Hu12 (talk) 06:10, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist examiner.com page(s) for article George Michael (sportscaster)

    I'm trying to fix an error I made in showing references from other sources that proves that he's dead, yet due to some examiner.com news links as other references posted months earlier, I am unable to do so. ErikNY (talk) 15:37, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I assume your referring to your removal here. Unfortunatly examiner .com, is a scraper site, not a real news site nor is it the washington Examiner. The first one is a 404 Page not found link (need a new reference here) and the second was scraped from the legitimate source found here (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/sports/farewell_to_the_king2007-02-27T08_00_00.html). The second ref is an easy fix. Thanks  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 06:00, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist sfgate.com pages for Article Chris Daly

    It appears a bunch of examiner.com edits have been blocked, and have completely changed this article. Furthermore, It appears there is some confusion in regarding sfgate.com, which pages have apparently also been blacklisted from this article. Sfgate.com has nothing to do with examiner.com, it is the official website of the SF Chronicle, not the examiner. However when I attempted to add a link from sfgate, it said it was a blocked sight for Chris Daly. KermitClown (talk) 19:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The site http://www.sfgate.com, is not blocked.  Not done--Hu12 (talk) 10:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist single page worldinstruments.suite101.com/article.cfm/tin_can_instruments for article Ramkie

    I wish to add the URL for this page to the references list for the article on the ramkie. It provides more complete information on this folk instrument, including instructions on how to build one. A commercial site that sells ramkies already is listed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vgallis (talk • contribs) 04:47, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    suite101.com links:
    • Have no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and articles are self-published
    • Offers its authors financial incentives to increase page views
    • Fails Wikipedia's core content policies:
    Unfortunatly you (Vgallis (talk · contribs)) appear to have a Cpnflict of interest with the Dec 23, 2009 suite101 article written by Victor A. Gallis. Additionaly Wikipedia is not a vehicle to "make money" promoting your suite101.com page. no Declined --Hu12 (talk) 05:36, 26 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Request to whitelist single page ingles-markets.com for article Ingles

    Ingles is article for grocery store, ingles-markets.com is their official website. I don't know why it was blacklisted, but at the very least, the link should be in the article. Thanks. --Omarcheeseboro (talk) 17:05, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree. I've whitelisted the main page, http://www.ingles-markets.com/index.php for use in the Ingles article..  Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 17:44, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    www.plasticsurgery.org

    This is the main website that represents greater than 95% of all board certified plastic surgeons in the United States. I noticed it was blacklisted when I tried to add an external link to the wiki page "en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Society_of_Plastic_Surgeons" that is written about the society. I do not know why it was blacklisted (either "competitors" are attempting to block it, or an over-zelous marketing department irritated Wiki), but it seems that at least an external link should be present on this page. Other significant medical societies have such external links from wiki. --DrMBogdan (talk) 20:30, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Because of previous abuses and spam I'm reluctent to whitelist the entire domain. However because this is the official site of American Society of Plastic Surgeons article and the the article lacks the official link... I've whitelisted the main page, http://www.plasticsurgery.org/x5.xml for use in that article only.  Done. Be sure to use the link exactly as presented, variations of that format will not work. Thanks--Hu12 (talk) 05:54, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you very much! --DrMBogdan (talk) 22:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied Requests

    lulu.com

    Hello I want to have www.lulu.com, which is a book site to be removed from the forbidden list because I need to reference that for notability for a wikipedia page I am doing on Luis Durani and it wil ladd credence to his personality and needed for his proof that he wrote teh book.

    This section is to request pages be blocked. Please file your request in the correct section. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    --Associatedcontent should be added to the white list because it is a great reference website, including many topics which aren't readily available anywhere else.

    Associatedcontent.com:
    • Exercises no editorial control over articles
    • Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers authors monetary incentives to increase pageviews
     Denied Stifle (talk) 14:01, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.deathcamps.org

    The site is linked in many articles.Xx236 (talk) 08:36, 5 November 2009 (UTC) www.deathcamps.org/euthanasia/obrawalde_de.html Xx236 (talk) 08:44, 5 November 2009 (UTC) There was a dispute between the mentioned site and www.death-camps.org which probably doesn't exist any more.Xx236 (talk) 08:53, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Ugly mess it is;
    More input by the other admins is needed before anything is done here.--Hu12 (talk) 19:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Several articles quote the site both directly (Gerstein Report) or pretending they don't (Hermann Höfle, Wikipeta!). The same for German Wikipedia. Either the site is totally wrong so all links should be replaced or it's O.K. . Now it's at the same time wrong and O.K.. Xx236 (talk) 07:43, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly do you want done? Do you want the site removed from the blacklist entirely (in which case you're at the wrong page) or do you want one or a few links permitted (in which case please specify the exact URIs)? Stifle (talk) 12:57, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    4shared

    Please whitelist http://www,4shared,com/file/151991255/b13331fb/JC_Smit_Chris_Streicher_Boeremag_Louis_Pretorius,html Replace the , with . It is a document and not spam. --41.18.100.246 (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Anon request to whitelist a link to 3 day old "account" on a file sharing site... unlikely to be reliable source. --Hu12 (talk) 06:31, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 11:20, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/x-13791-Baltimore-Disease-Prevention-Examiner~y2009m11d4-Records-show-case-of-dystonia-is-psychogenic-and-not-related-to-flu-vaccine

    I'm about to post an article which would benefit from this link. Examiner.com is banned because it superficially appears reliable but is in fact a "citizen journalism" site with very limited editorial oversight. However, this particular link is to an article by Rene Najera, who is an epidemiologist with the Maryland Department of Health and Mental Hygiene, and I want to cite him on a topic of epidemiology. In fact, all I really want to do is cite his citation of a public records database. EvanHarper (talk) 03:52, 15 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com:
    • Has no editorial oversight
    • Articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers incentives to writers to increase page views
    Therefore I am of the opinion that this request should be declined, and will duly decline it in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined Stifle (talk) 16:00, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.amazon.com/dp/6303194753?tag=imdb-adbox

    Amazon is presumably banned as an online bookshop, and most links would therefore be merely advertising. The unblock for this specific page, concerning the video of the Running Blind TV series, is to verify the high price at which the now extremely rare videos change hands. Skinsmoke (talk) 03:01, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We shouldn't be citing that page as it's a primary source (and it could change in the morning anyway). Instead, cite a reliable source which has written about it. At worst, cite an Amazon page that is not an affiliate link (which should not be blocked). Stifle (talk) 12:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 11:19, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    dom3.servegame.com/wiki/

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

    (please unblock this namespace)

    This site is a (media)wiki about the game Dominions3 created from fans of the game. See [official dom3 forum entry]

    Seeing the Link from the wikipedia article to the dom3 wiki is very important for everyone interested at the dom3 game. --Horst_F_JENS (talk) 15:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Fansites are a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy. It would seem to also fail Verifiability and Reliable Source guidelines also. Its not a "reliable source" for all the same reasons Wikipedia isn't a reliable source. It has no editorial oversight (see WP:RS) and content is self-published, which includes open wikis.--Hu12 (talk) 20:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    sound extremly stupid to me. with the same arguing, the existing links of the dom3 article (pointing to chinese fan-wiki, strategywiki etc.) should all be deleted and if i understand it right wikipedia articles should also do not link to wikipedia itself (being an open wiki with questionable editing). please, let me modify the dom3 article (i started it and it was one of the reasons to invest time into wikipeda) so that it be useful for it readers. the dom3 "fan" wiki i want to link to is "the" official dom3 wiki right now, read press release form game's publisher http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showthread.php?t=44186 for more information. being forced to have to beg for a simple thing like posting an external link on an article that would not exist without me is a HUGE dissappointment and shows how a good idea (wikipedia) can go downhill.--Horst_F_JENS (talk) 07:09, 17 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    First WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second, "fan wiki's" (with 4 active users last 7days(You being one of them)) are not compatibe with inclusion gudelines. Thirdly, the official site is already listed, Wikipedia is not a linkfarm to everything and enything dom3. From the looks of Dominions3 whats needed are citations, not links Not done--Hu12 (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the article in question, I see a message box saying "This article is missing citations or needs footnotes." As for citing sources, from the relevant article:
    When to cite sources: Sources should be cited when adding material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, when quoting someone, when adding material to the biography of a living person, and when uploading an image.
    None of the three references that are in the article right now seem to serve any kind of purpose, as I don't think that somebody wants to fact-check if the game really offers "over 1500 units, 600 spells and 300 magic items" (first citation), "only has a small amount of economic management, focusing almost entirely on creating and deploying armies" (second citation) or that "the battles cannot be influenced once the computer calculates the new turn, but players can set simple orders for their troops before the battle is calculated" (third citation). The last fact may be a little surprising, but it's not like this is really extremely relevant information that would need verification through some "reliable source" as the cited information there is either irrelevant or easily checked where ever you look without digging around much.
    The request wasn't to add the Wiki as a "reliable source" anyway. Regarding the second option from the message box on top of the Dominions 3 article, the need for footnotes:
    Wikipedia footnotes serve two purposes. First, to add explanatory material, particularly if the added information would be distracting if written out in the main article. Second, they are used to present citations to reliable sources that support assertions in the main article.
    The citation argument is in there again. As explained earlier, the Wiki has the blessings of both the game's developers and publisher and was featured in an official news announcement from the game publisher which was reproduced among multiple gaming news sites. But much more important is the first part, that the Wiki in question does provided additional material which would be useless to include in the Wikipedia article. Even if some Wikipedia guidelines prevent to declare it as being a "reliable source of information", it isn't meant to "proof" anything in the Wikipedia article. As it is the most extensive knowledge base regarding the game, it would make a lot of sense to add it as a footnote for people that want to add or seek information regarding the game which would depart from encyclopedic information as sought by Wikipedia.
    Could you illustrate how the Wiki in question could be listed among the footnotes, due to its importance for the community of the game?
    129.217.150.82 (talk) 18:44, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    Footnotes are reference(s). The guideline that most directly relates to whether a given source is reliable is Reliable sources. The policies that most directly relate to this are: Verifiability and No original research. For questions and discussions about the reliability of sources, the appropriate place for discussion is at the Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard. Discussions about improvements for the Dominions3 article is better served on that Articles talkpage, not here. thank you. Closed.--Hu12 (talk) 22:26, 18 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    www.conlanganon.co.cc

    I wish for this site to be unblocked because it is a friendly forum for conlangers with nothing potentially harmful on it. I believe it is useful for people reading the conlang page on wikipedia to have links to such communities. I also believe there may be a problem with the site http://co.cc/ concerning issues like spam, however, although this site uses the service of http://co.cc , it is not involved with anything that site does and therefore is not malicious or anything of that nature.

    Thank you. 202.36.110.10 (talk) 12:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Unfortunaly this site is an unofficial fansite/forum (With only 2 total menbers) which makes it a Link normally to be avoided which fails Wikipedias External Links policy.--Hu12 (talk) 21:11, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    z3.invisionfree.com/Kettering_Anime_Club/index.php?

    I would like this site unblocked because it is the web forum for the Kettering University Anime Club, and I wish to link the forum to the "List of student organizations" section of the Kettering University article where the club is mentioned. Wikipedia would benefit from this by being able to provide the most accurate reference to the club and it's activities.

    Thank you, Radnom2, current president of the Kettering University Anime Club. --Radnom2 (talk) 21:47, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined; web forums are not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 22:29, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    kfantransmittertour.co.cc

    This site replaces a now-defunct geocities site referenced for historical data on Wiki pages about radio stations KFAN_(AM) Minneapolis and KFXN Minneapolis. Both the old site and new site were/are created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations.

    Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 20:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    The links proposed are those referenced in the two articles above. In short, "kfantransmittertour.co.cc" should be whitelisted; as noted above, it is the new (relocated) home of the defunct geocities pages created and maintained by the former Chief Engineer of the stations which the articles are about. The information contained at that site has been researched and presented by the individual who maintained and supervised the technical operations of the two radio stations under discussion. This person has first-hand knowledge of the subjects, having been employed by the owner of the stations in the position responsible for proper and legal operation and maintenance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 09:25, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not going to whitelist the entire domain. What specific links do you want to use? Stifle (talk) 09:51, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    kfantransmittertour.co.cc is the URL to whitelist. It is the index page to all of the site's sub links, 100% of which pertain to the articles. The site is a small, focused site about the stations and nothing else. Take a look and you'll see it is acceptable to whitelist and makes sense to do so given the number of deeper links, all living on the one main page.

    This page - kfantransmittertour.co.cc/alw.html - confirms the identity and validity of the site's author should there be concern about anything lurking below the surface; the previous, 100% identical, geocities site (exactly the same as kfantransmittertour.co.cc, only the URL has changed) had been listed on the Wiki station articles for years without issue. The change under discussion is simply a site move/URL change prompted by the discontinuance of geocities. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.94.4.201 (talk) 19:06, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I have told you we are not going to whitelist the entire domain. As you are not apparently willing to specify which link you want us to whitelist, this request is  Denied. Stifle (talk) 13:06, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It was explained quite clearly and politely why it is appropriate to whitelist kfantransmittertour.co.cc. You have not explained why it should not be whitelisted. Why do you think it should not be whitelisted? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.206.15 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    • The request appears to be for the site's index page, which is accessed by the main URL without an extension, to be whitelisted. - Eastmain (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com/content/paperback-book/practical-dita/7692915

    I was adding a reference book to the other reading section to the Darwinian Information Typing Architecture. This link is a direct pointer to the book referenced and would help the reader acquire the document if they so wish. 64.132.140.14 (talk) 16:56, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Wikipedia is not a shopping site. We don't like to products like that. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:59, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    If that's the rationale, then you should edit the other entries in the Further Reading section of the article and remove references to the purchase sites for those. You should have a consistent policy and blocking for this reason does not make sense. If someeone wants to get the reference, they will. If not, they won't follow the link. --Jvazquezsdi (talk) 18:14, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    First, The nature of Wikipedia means that you can't make a convincing argument based on what other "links" in articles do or don't exist; So just pointing out that some link exists in an article somewhere doesn't prove the link your requesting should also be added. In addition, its a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific inclusion requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Finaly, Wikipedia is NOT a "vehicle for advertising" . Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote a book. --Hu12 (talk) 18:55, 24 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    I think blacklisting Lulu.com pages should be reconsidered. There are numerous free PDFs available there, as well as printed books sold not for profit. As a DIY publishing site, it may even be the only place one can find out of print versions of a text republished by authors, or even originals worth reading. I tried to link to a book I authored there, but it was blocked. There is a free PDF version available to download, and the printed and bound book is for sale with no profit margin. I may, or may not be a distinguished author, but at least my User page should be able to point to all my publications, including Youtube videos, Flickr photos, papers in journals, and books in Lulu. I hope you will lift the ban on Lulu.com and instead treat each link on its merits. Especially if Wikipedia is ot getting swamped by spam from Lulu. Leighblackall (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    You can cite the book without linking for a site where people can buy it. Also, if it's a free PDF, put it up on your own website and cite it from there. Stifle (talk) 11:18, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Request to whitelist a single page from associatedcontent dot com

    I'd like to request the whitelisting a single web page from the blacklisted web site www dot associatedcontent dot com. The page is http://www.associatedcontent dot com/article/678813/the_forgotten_confederate_soldiers.html?singlepage=true&cat=37 (The Forgotten: Confederate Soldiers Who Died at Gettysburg.) I'd only like to add this link to the "External Links" section of Gettysburg National Cemetery article. I feel the linked web page contains valuable historic information that may not be entirely sourced to Wikipedia standards. As an external link, the user certainly realizes that Wikipedia standards don't apply. Krellkraver (talk) 13:04, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Associated Content:
    • Articles have no editorial control; they are essentially self-published (see WP:RS)
    • Offers monetary incentives to authors to increase page views
    • Fails WP:ELNO #1: "avoid [a]ny site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a Featured article".
    Therefore, I am minded to deny this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:01, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied Stifle (talk) 11:17, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    petitiononline.com

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

    it's a site for petitions relevant to many topics on wikipedia. why must the default position of wikipedia be so bureaucratic fascist? in the specific case it's for the history channel tv show ufo hunters which has been cancelled and there is a petition by the creators of the show to bring it back. it is very relevant information and anything but spam 85.83.19.103 (talk) 17:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)Dan Frederiksen[reply]

    First its a Link normally to be avoided, and second Wikipedia is not a "vehicle for petition recruitment" , nor is it a place to to promote a cause.Wikipedia is an encyclopedia - as such many links do not belong here.no Declined.
    Closing as vexatious--Hu12 (talk) 20:04, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    Single page on iPetitions

    Hello, I would like to request the whitelisting of a petition to boycott the [[Alexandria Aces {Cal Ripken Collegiate Baseball League}]] -- www.ipetitions.com/petition/boycottaces Thanks! BBT2005 (talk) 16:37, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Petition links are Link normally to be avoided, and Wikipedia is not a " vehicle for petition recruitment" , nor is it a place to to promote a cause OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:19, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]


    Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Fallingrain.com

    Myself, Darwinek and many other active editors are well aware that this site contains false information, particularly population and altitude which have regularly been shown to be grossly inaccurate. For instance it would say "771 people" in a 7 km radius yet according to official Chinese census data it actually has 35,000 in the town notincluding surrounding villages. Others include a coastal village in Madagascar which falling rain claimed had an altitude of 360 metres when it is clearly barely above sea level. The site is 15 years out of date and I've seen it used by lesser informed individuals to reference articles which is a major threat to reliability. Worst affected are Pakistan and India. I believe the community expressed concern previously about fallingrain as fialing to adhere to reliable sources. The coordinates are generally accurate but little else actually is. I propose the blacklisting of this website and the removal of links to it from all articles which I believe would be a major cleanup. The shoddy name alone is enough to think the article is false which uses it as a reference or link. Dr. Blofeld White cat 12:15, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    True Fallingrain.com cannot be trusted. From my own experience it is grossly unreliable website with simply false information about population, altitudes and even the names of towns/villages. Wikipedia should be a respected source of knowledge, which it cannot be with this website used as a reference in many articles. There are much more reliable statistics and sources (especially official ones), which can be used. Blocking this website and removing all links from Wikipedia would only benefit the project. - Darwinek (talk) 12:42, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    I got a note asking me to come here and comment on this site. I don't remember ever having used it myself. I checked however, and at this moment, 9,530 wikipedia articles have links to it.
    If the suggestion is to blacklist this site, are we talking about replacing every instance where it is used with a more reliable link? That is at least 9,530 links. If this is to be done individually, by humans, and it takes a human, on average, one minute per correction, a minimum of 150 person-hours.
    Never having used this site, I think I should stay neutral. If, however, it is blacklisted, I will agree to be part of an effort to look for replacement links. I'll sign on for sixty articles.
    Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 16:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    LOL Geoswan. You are an old fashioned guy! 9,530 links could be removed in just a few hours using AWB or even better a bot. Nobody is going to be spending 150 hours on that job for sure!!! But the fact it is used in 9530 articles is extremely concerning in terms of reliability....

    So, setting a bot to remove the URLs, without trying to replace them with more reliable links is an acceptable option? That's a relief. Cheers! Geo Swan (talk) 14:52, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    A bot or AWB could be used to remove the links. In a lot of cases they are used along side other sources so removing the falling rain website is in my view a case of despamming and avoiding misleading editors by exposing them to unreliable population and altitude data. The most serious cases are those though where no reliable sources are available and falling rain is used as a primary source, often to source population and other data which is unavailable. Relying on fallingrain for population and such figures (as I've myself been guilty of with Tibet for instance) as caused a major reliability problem and mass of errors and should be cleaned up and delisted asap.. Dr. Blofeld White cat 14:59, 24 December 2009 (UTC) Not to mention that the site still thinking it is 1995-6 still shows some closed railway lines in numerous articles and has been used as a primary source, so in effect it is giving misleading information and implies that certain railway lines and small settlements that have been abandoned still exist. Dr. Blofeld White cat 16:21, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    It is with some concern the amount of usage of innacurate information from the site can be found in wikipedia as a 'valid source' - some time ago - the Australian project editors who had reviewed the innacuracy actually voted for and succeeded in getting an article about fallingrain afd'ed - that had been created by an editor who had over-relied upon the fallingrain source - and by any account may well still be doing so - any definite action in reducing reliance upon an unreliable source on the web would be appreciated by those who have to debate with editors who claim it is a useful source - when editors who have sufficient knowledge of context of some of the information - see it as a misleading and often incorrect source SatuSuro 16:00, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    Is the site already in XLinkBot? That seems like the appropriate way to warn editors that the site contains unreliable data when they try to add it, while still allowing editorial discretion. While the RfC showed that unreliability can be a factor in blacklisting, there was little support for blacklisting merely unreliable sites absent actual spamming. Youtube is a similar unreliable site, and IIRC it's in XLinkBot, not the blacklist. Let me see: [14] Gigs (talk) 19:23, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

    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=334581240"