MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Archives (current)→

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|353311018#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:
Declined	{{Declined}}
Not done	{{Notdone}}
Information:
Additional information needed	{{MoreInfo}}
Note:	{{TakeNote}}

Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)

iblogger.org

I wish to change some links to pages moved to sub domains of iblogger.org

Since TPG have taken over MySoul, my site at home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/ will close on 22 January 2010 Other sites have been moved since the closure of geocites in October 2009.

The new sub domains are:

greatestbattles.iblogger.org smx.iblogger.org dutcheastindies.iblogger.org marmon-herrington.iblogger.org These are the sub domains I would like added to the white list.

Existing links to this material are: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tipu_Sultan http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyder_Ali http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_history_of_Mysore_and_Coorg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lewin_Bentham_Bowring http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mangalorean_Catholics http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Scurry http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Captivity_of_Mangalorean_Catholics_at_Seringapatam http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Gettysburg! http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_East_Indies_campaign & 45 more: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=geocities.com%2Fdutcheastindies%2F&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington_Armoured_Car http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marmon-Herrington_CTLS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier%27s_Gettysburg!

I have previously been unable to cite other material from geocites pages and wish to add these now for .iblogger.org sub domains. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Jena-Auerstedt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solferino,_Battle_of http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sid_Meier http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerlitz:_Napoleon%27s_Greatest_Victory http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saratoga_campaign

This material includes the only on-line full text of the public domain 1893 book: HAIDAR ALI AND TIPU SULTAN AND THE STRUGGLE WITH THE MUSALMAN POWERS OF THE SOUTH BY LEWIN B. BOWRING, C.S.I. FORMERLY CHIEF COMMISSIONER OF MYSORE;

A large database on the Dutch East Indies Campaign of World War II; A database of Military Vehicles by the Marmon Herrington Company The largest source of user made modifications for the computer games: Sid Meier's Gettysburg, Waterloo: Napoleon's Last Battle & Austerlitz: Napoleon's Greatest Victory plus supporting historical material on the battles depicted in these modifications.

Graeme Cook (talk) 02:21, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• How are these reliable sources? Stifle (talk) 11:40, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Dear Stifle,

Lewin B. Bowring was commisioner for Mysore. As his book was published in 1893 & he is writing about the 1790s he is not a primary source but his book is well foot-noted.

The Official Reports of the American Civil war are primary sources. The officers who wrote them may not be unbiased but they are accurate in the sense that this is what they wrote in their reports and for balance there are the reports of other officers, both Union & Confederate, of the same events. The cross referencing of unit names where they are referred to by their commander's name and the spreadsheet of casualties by regiment is draw from the official reports themselves.

The Dutch East Indies Campaign material is drawn from multiple sources in English, Dutch and Japanese. Contributors & some sources are listed on the credits page, others on the individual pages.

Peter Hofschröer uses German language sources (listed in the Bibliography) rather than the usual English sources for the battle of Jena in 1806 between the French and Prussians.

The Marmon-Herrington Military Vehicles material is from sources (listed on individual pages) including manufacturer's documents, official reports, various books & magazines and contemporary photographs.

etc.

Graeme Cook (talk) 22:04, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

As there are no objections and 7 weeks having passed, would you now approve this request?

Graeme Cook (talk) 01:51, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• You did not really answer the question. Much of the content you describe sounds like copyright violations. Guy (Help!) 09:22, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

Dear Guy,

Actually the question asked was "How are these reliable sources?". Some contributors have retained copyright of their articles. The intention is not to copy this material to Wikipedia but to cite it where appropriate.

Graeme Cook (talk) 10:36, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Guy did bring up a good point. I am concerned about WP:LINKVIO. Some of the material has obviously had its copyright expire (Lewin Bentham Bowring died in 1910. The American Civil War ended in 1865. Those items have expired copyrights). The problem is with certain articles that still appear to be copyrighted, such as those by Peter Hofschröer, George Gush and others. There is no indication on those pages that these people have released their works into the public domain. Are you able to provide evidence that they have allowed your site to host their material? 152.16.16.75 (talk) 11:08, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Copyright notices requiring permission to reproduce have only been placed when requested. In contrast, where this some of the same George Gush's material appears on http://www.myarmoury.com/feature_armies_swiss.html the site both acknowledges use with permission and claims copyright for themselves.

A list of books by Peter_Hofschröer can be found at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Hofschr%C3%B6er but he also contributes to websites eg: http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_myths_1.html http://www.achart.ca/wellington/siborne.htm http://www.achart.ca/wellington/waterloo1.htm http://www.scott-ludwig.com/NWC/Prussia/archives/grape1.htm

Graeme Cook (talk) 10:46, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

There is a George Gush page at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Gush

Graeme Cook (talk) 11:08, 1 March 2010 (UTC)

Is there a quick method for deleting multiple dead links? Graeme Cook (talk) 22:58, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com 2

I would also like to use examiner.com as a source on the upcoming book by Suzanne Collins, rumored to be called "The Victors". The previous two books (The Hunger Games and Catching Fire) were enormously popular, and were both National Bestsellers.GrandMattster 21:25, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Rumoured? I am sorry, we need reliable sources, especially for rumors. And Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. But could you be a bit more specific which document you'd like whitelisted? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:28, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The exact site is http://www. examiner . com/x-11219-Denver-Young-Adult-Fiction-Examiner~y2009m10d4-Suzanne-Collins-improves-on-The-Hunger-Games-in-sequel-Catching-Fire. GrandMattster 19:47, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Recommend no action. The source says nothing more than that there is a rumor as to the name of the new book. If there was a reported substance, it's conceivable I'd have recommended a courtesy whitelisting, to give you the chance to discuss it, but this is a lost cause, the only way it could be used is if nobody notices. However, if you find other examiner.com pages with stronger arguments for using, don't hesitate to ask here, and I'll try to help see that you get a much faster response. --Abd (talk) 00:56, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

forums.encyclopediadramatica.com/showpost.php?p=164375&postcount=21

I'm trying to use this specific post as a citation for the Encyclopædia Dramatica section i'm creating concerning a recent problem that has arisen due to the hosting costs of their website. I would like this link to be whitelisted in order to give readers a basic idea of the hosting costs, which i have quoted in the short article but need the citation. Thanks --Bailo26 (talk) 01:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

While the monthly cost of running a website is of some interest, particularly if it means the site may close, the information is of little long-term encyclopedic value, and there is no chance that any statement on ED, particularly a forum posting, could be taken as a reliable source. Johnuniq (talk) 03:34, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

So is that a no then?--Bailo26 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

There is an exemption from this in WP:ELOFFICIAL. I am somewhat inclined to approve the request but will see what other admins say. Stifle (talk) 09:22, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

• If this is a significant fact then it will be covered in reliable independent secondary sources. If it is not covered in such sources then it's just random forum wibble which can safely be ignored. The ED forums are not a reliable source for anything at all. Guy (Help!) 11:35, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
• recommend no action. If, however, the editor will show reasonable consent from Talk:Encyclopedia Dramatica for usage of this link, I would revise my recommendation so that the edit could be attempted. --Abd (talk) 01:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)
• I really don't like that whitelisting decision have turned into content decisions. The value of a specific link is a matter for the article talk page. The decision here should be based on spam potential and spam potential alone. And a link this specific is no risk of spam. Whitelist it and let them decide on the article talk whether it's an appropriate link or not. Gigs (talk) 21:54, 20 March 2010 (UTC

Interview with Miracle Laurie at Examiner.com

The alert triggered when I tried to save a page with an interview Examiner.com indicated that I can just request a specific page be allowed. Since this is an interview with Miracle Laurie, and it looks legit, can it be unblocked? The odd thing is that the url was already in that article before I edited it; I just added more material from it, and changed the ref tag into a ref name tag in order to cite it twice. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:13, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What is the complete URL (you can add some spaces here to be able to save this post)? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:54, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

The url is: h t t p : / / w w w . examiner.com/x-585-Entertainment-Examiner~y2009m9d29-A-Conversation-with-Dollhouse-doll-Miracle-Laurie. Nightscream (talk) 00:34, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Due to past abuse we'd normally only whitelist a link if it provides a reliable source for something not covered elsewhere. There is no shortage of interviews, after all. Guy (Help!) 19:38, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Interview on justjared.buzznet.com

There is an ongoing edit curfuffle at Miranda Kerr concerning her ethnic background. Numerous sites around the web list one thing while this interview done by justjared (justjared.buzznet.com/2009/09/11/miranda-kerrs-biggest-runway-mishap-flying-shoe/) contradicts that information and appears to set the record straight from the mouth of Miranda Kerr. I don't know anything about justjared or its history on WP other than discovering it's blacklisted (when I tried to add the reference) but perhaps they can be trusted for an interview? I've searched the internet for a couple of hours now (egads!) trying to find any other source for either side that appears definitive and have come up empty. I see here that a similar request was approved but not with a lot of confidence. I would like to remove the contentious part from the article and be done with it but I'm guessing it'll just keep popping up since a lot of people seem to really care about her ethnic background. If this one page were whitelisted maybe the issue would calm down. SQGibbon (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

What makes that site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:51, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The site in general? Probably nothing, but I'm not that familiar with it either way (other than its reputation here on Wikipedia). An interview though? While it could be completely made up I've seen no indication that this has been a problem with interviews they've claimed to have done in the past. But then I haven't seen them defended on this count either. I would think that just transcribing an interview could be considered as separate to their reliability as a source otherwise. SQGibbon (talk) 19:45, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

FreeRepublic webmaster quote

The FreeRepublic article, right near the bottom, has an uncited quote from its webmaster Jim Robinson over his personal feelings about a potential Presidential candidate, and how the website will be active in disparaging said candidate should he receive the nomination for President. The quote is real and you can see it here ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2440862/posts?page=25#25 ). The reason this quote is significant is because it backs up many allegations of mistreatment from members who believe the website discriminates against those who do not conform with what the webmaster believes. There's an entire section of the article devoted to the mistreatment of members. Even if the quote is not included verbatim, I feel a link to this specific post he made would further substantiate those claims, and is significant enough to note. I'd like to ask for that specific link to be allowed, but not FreeRepublic as a whole to be unblocked. Kelseypedia (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

I'd also like to request a whitelist for the following to fill a cite for another uncited quote. This link ( www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2101737/posts ) shows that the webmaster did indeed endorse McCain near the end of the 2008 elections - something which was also near the end of teh article and unsourced. I will see if I can find his post about Bush. Kelseypedia (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

• If it's not covered by reliable independent sources then it's not significant and should simply be removed. Guy (Help!) 23:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
• Stale
  Guy (Help!) 13:13, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Green County Indian's County Web Site

It seems the web site run by the Green County government is on the blacklist. This whole issue should be reviewed (it is a county-run web site), but barring that, I'd like to have greenecountyindiana.com/attractions/viaduct_aka_the_tulip_tressle added to the white list so that it can be used as a proper reference on the Tulip Viaduct page.--P Todd (talk) 01:00, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

This page has details of how the page got onto the blacklist. More here. I am minded to allow this request but will leave open for a few days in case others have something to chip in. Stifle (talk) 09:29, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

MoneyWeek: Michael O'Leary profile

Please whitelist:

• Lewis, Jane (2006-10-19). "Michael O'Leary: the outrageous Irish airline entrepeneur". Moneyweek. Retrieved 2010-03-07.

so that it can be used as a reference on Michael O'Leary (Ryanair), Ryanair, Tillingdale, et al. The article contains information about O'Leary's business history including those prior to his becoming CEO of Ryanair. Note that the URL is fudged to allow this request to be filed. —Sladen (talk) 18:40, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

Could you put the url you want to be whitelisted in nowiki-tags, or remove the http:// from the beginning so we know where to look. Also, is this a reliable source for that information? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:35, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

s/honeyweek/moneyweek/: http://www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/michael-oleary-the-outrageous-irish-airline-entrepeneur.aspx —Sladen (talk) 21:42, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

Examiner.com

I've used examiner.com/x-26018-SE-Michigan-Islamic-Examiner~y2010m3d5-Muslims-grieve-for-beloved-leader--Aminah-Asslimi-a-leader-in-the-American-Muslim-landscape as a reference for the life (and death) of Aminah Assilmi. Can we whitelist that one? Anyone know why it was blacklisted? – Toon 21:10, 15 March 2010 (UTC)

I would expect there to be better sources for this information. Examiner.com was blacklisted for various reasons, one of them being that most information is not reliable. Especially for the (recent) death of a BLP the sources should be of higher quality. I do get quite some hits on this on Google, may I suggest to find a better source? --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:40, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh really? I wasn't aware it was unreliable. I'll go hunting then. Cheers, – Toon 15:17, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

The site contains user submitted content with different degrees of reliability (which is generally the case for user submitted content). But there is more, including abuse, spam incentives, etc. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:41, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

nzartconference.cjb.net

Please unblock the above site.

There will be reference material on this site relating to Amateur Radio following the technical fourms which will be of interest to the general Radio Amateur.

Thanks Doug.

Dougcooke2004 (talk) 19:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

kfantransmittertour.co.cc/index.html

Please whitelist the page so that it can be used on KFAN (AM). A previous request from an IP states:

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.

This is a primary source, rather than a reliable secondary source, but it includes photographs and technical information not available on the station's official site, and does not appear to carry advertising. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 13:34, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

 Added (\bkfantransmittertour\.co\.cc\b (i.e., the whole site). I presume this is going to be used as a reference for something. This indeed seems to be the original/only copy of this page. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 07:50, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

Approved Requests

Two links for St. Patrick's Day

hubpages.com/hub/Orange-on-St-Patricks-Day

This article, written by a staff member of HubPages (see their "elite" page at /elite/), is to be used as another source of information for wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 20:30, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

examiner.com/examiner/x-34698-Tuscaloosa-History-Examiner~y2010m3d16-Wear-Orange-on-St-Patricks-Day

This article, written by a staffed member of Examiner.com, is to be used as another source of information for wearing orange on St. Patrick's Day. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 21:01, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Though I expect that there are better sources for this information (as in, properly peer reviewed information; though I did not look for that),  Added. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:27, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

The information is regarding account of an emergent tradition from multiple locations across the US, so unfortunately this is as yet the best that can be done BUT they are both written by staffed writers. Thank you very much. ₪— CelticWonder (T·C) " 17:32, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Denied Requests

ipetition web page to stop the TV show Pretty Wild linked to the Pretty Wild Article

Would like to you to consider whitelisting this page on ipetition, in order to cite it at the Pretty Wild article, the link would only be to this web page -ipetitions.com/petition/prettywild//petition to cancel unethical E! Entertainment show "Pretty Wild" - on Pretty Wild, I see that the ipetition domain is blacklisted but the article makes the point that the petition to stop this show was started soon after it aired for the first time and having a link that shows the petition created for that specific purpose adds credibility to that specific claim and also illustrates the action taken by the viewers to dissent while not involving the rest of the ipetition domain from the blacklist --Cleaner_TV (talk) --CleanerTV (talk) 05:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Declined, as we do not generally report on petitions unless they first establish notability independently. (For that same reason, I have already removed the text from the article in question.) Note that the simple fact that a petition exists is not sufficient to determine notability; the petition must become noteworthy enough to gain recognition beyond those who endorse it. --Ckatz^chat_spy 07:41, 20 March 2010 (UTC)O.K but I have seen the petition line added a couple of times so I won't be suprised if its added again, I think that if 200 people sign a public petition to take some show off the air after it has only aired one time, and given the controversial nature of the program in question (reality show about subjects with criminal involment) that is mentioned prominently on the article it would make sense to at least mention the issue of the petition list by viewers, but is your call. Also, it was mentioned in various forums that the page was in fact created before the show aired, which begs the question if eliminating all mentions of controversy just makes it a ad by the channel to promote the show.Just sayin'Thanks.--CleanerTV (talk) 13:03, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Declined Not notable, and Wikipedia is not a soapbox. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:17, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com/article/51596/my_interview_with_kat_von_d_of_miami.html?cat=33

I hereby request that the interview I created be allowed to be added to Kat Von D's profile page, along with the other interviews on her page.

Wikipedia can benefit from this addition as I have garnered high traffic from it on the link provided, and would like to share it with others who may also be interested in reading this article. Thank you for your consideration.SarahLee23 (talk) 20:47, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

 Declined for the very reasons that associatedcontent is blacklisted; inherent conflict-of-interest issues and failure to meet reliable sources guidelines. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 20:55, 20 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see 'Earning Money'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

petitions.number10.gov.uk/PSRyde/

petitions.number10.gov.uk/PSRyde/ - I wish to use this petition to back up the fact that over 3,000 signatures were collected on the petition to save PS Ryde. As the title is currently blacklisted I've had to come up with a bodge to get around the blacklisting. It would be much better to be able to actually cite the petition using the {{cite web}} template. Mjroots (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2010 (UTC)

That's a primary source, and the number does not actually mean anything without an external review of the voting. Seems to me pretty much the reason why this site was blacklisted in the first place. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 09:33, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it is a primary source, however, the existence of the petition is mentioned in a reliable secondary source. When that source went to press, over 2,000 signatures had been collected, but the petition was still open. What I really want to be able to quote is the exact number of signatures on the petition, which has now closed. As the ship is now (being) scrapped, the mention of the petition cannot be seen as being biased in favour of the PS Ryde Preservation Socitey or in favour of the preservation of the ship. Mjroots (talk) 13:42, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

Then cite the secondary sources. Guy (Help!) 13:56, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

But the secondary sources do not give the exact figure. Mjroots (talk) 17:07, 17 March 2010 (UTC)

Then it's not a significant fact. Guy (Help!) 10:45, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

 Declined Stifle (talk) 12:58, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

www.associatedcontent.com/article/2808524/donell_jones_lets_fans_know_whats_up.html

I was trying to update the entry on Donell Jones after completing an interview with him on Friday, but this link is blocked. I talked with him directly and have a recorded interview so I'm sure it's him. I understand that sometimes AC may not fact check, but I've done many interviews with celebs, and this one is valid. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamontiel (talk • contribs) 15:09, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

 Declined, this is just why this is blacklisted, associatedcontent is not a reliable source, you have a conflict of interest, and associatedcontent pays (also you) well for being linked to. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:18, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

Also see 'Earning Money'. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 15:20, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

You say that AssociatedContent is not a reliable source even though the reporter, myself, talked with Donell Jones directly to get the information. Your site had the wrong year for him. You should be happy I corrected it for you. And just so we're clear, ANY Web site on the Internet has ads and money attached to it so if you're going to remove every site with monetary gain you'd have no links at all. This is a prime example of why I don't use Wikipedia. I just came on here to correct your year. Oh, and just so we're clear, there are other links to interviews written by me for other publications on Wikipedia. I will make sure to delete them as well. If those are okay to stay, then this one should be, too. Don't punish the reporter because you feel the site is "unreliable." The only difference between my interview here and my interview with other publications is the domain name. But since you want to blacklist a link, I'll change the birth year back to the incorrect information that Wikipedia has. Trust me, I won't help this site again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Shamontiel (talk • contribs)

I'm happy that you corrected it, but I am sure there are better sources for the information. And I explained why this site is blacklisted, and the others are not. That you have a conflict of interest is a lesser problem. --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 08:47, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

Bennett Engineering: Lowry Centre Footbridge

Please whitelist:

• www.bennettmg.co.uk/Project_MS_Lowry_1.aspx

I would like to reference the information contained on this page for the Salford Quays lift bridge article. Roobarb! (talk) 14:08, 8 March 2010 (UTC)

How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2010 (UTC)

 Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 12:57, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

tvrage (attempts at blacklist evasion)

Hopefully, this is a one-off event... an IP posted the URL "http://69.64.63.153/redirect.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tvrage.com%2Fglee" (with descriptor "Glee Episode Guide, Previews, cast, Guest Stars & More") on the Glee series page. That URL redirects directly to TV Rage's Glee page, while the bare IP ("69.64.63.153") simply says "It works!" Looks like a deliberate attempt to hack around the blacklist, and yet another reason to deny any whitelist requests. --Ckatz^chat_spy 22:12, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

I've requested that URL redirector be blacklisted on meta. MER-C 02:36, 26 March 2010 (UTC)

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

lenr-canr.org

The site lenr-canr.org has a lax approach to copyright and was blacklisted for this and other abuses. Some links were whitelisted mainly at the request of user:Abd. Following the usual process of editorial debate and consensus only one of those remained in article space as of today, and I just removed it as it is an article copyright of Elsevier Publishing for which we already have a DOI link. Abd is now topic-banned from cold fusion. There are several regex expressions in the list which support the several requested links mainly as part of his project to rewrite the article in terms more favourable to the pro-cold fusion editors, but it's hard to see how that's actually going to be of any benefit as the three main advocates of this content, Abd, Jed Rothewell and Pcarbonn, are all indefinitely topic banned. The fact that the only link in mainspace was a copyright violation says it all, really. I think we should simply remove these links and discuss again as and when a good-faith editor requests them for some actual content, hopefully without the befuddling walls of text which characterised the earlier discussions. Guy (Help!) 22:57, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Links for reference:

• first request of two one link (added)
• request for entire site (declined)
• request for transcript of audio interview (added)
• request for 13 papers (9 added)

Note that Pcarbonn's topic ban has expired it has now been placed again and extended to indefinite. --Enric Naval (talk) 23:55, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Oh dear. We can do without that particular person "helping" us, I think. Guy (Help!) 16:05, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

1st of all, please don't de-list the transcript of the radio interview.

2nd, Jed (the website's owner) says that he got the permission of the authors of the text, which seems to be correct and true. However, looking at the copyright pages of the journals that published the papers, some say that the authors can only host copies in their own personal websites, while others reserve all rights.

3rd, I understand that in several occasions Jed has taken papers down when requested by its publisher, which seems to imply that he didn't have previous publisher permission for some of the papers, and that those papers only remained there because the publishers have not bothered to complain about them. This could perfectly be the case for several of the whitelisted papers.

4th, they were claimed as convenience copies of article sources, but they are not being used as sources anywhere due to strong disagreements in talk pages with other editors (like myself).

5th, and most importantly, those are all primary sources that were going to be used to counter the points made by secondary sources, aka original research. The secondary sources say that this sort of papers has been ignored by the majority of scientific community since the field was discredited long time ago (~1989). The intention was adding these primary sources to the article, then claim them as examples that the secondary sources are wrong, and list them as examples of what the scientists really thought of the developments in the field. --Enric Naval (talk) 14:50, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

• The authors do not have the right to give permission to publish material whose copyright they have, by virtue of submission and acceptance of publishing, assigned to the publisher concerned. They are allowed to publish papers on their own websites but not to release the material to other websites. This has been covered before. Guy (Help!) 11:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

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)

Spam whitelist proposal

A proposal to provide a standardized form when requesting additions to the spam whitelist is at WP:VPR#Change of format for MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist. Your comments are welcome. MER-C 11:03, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

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)