MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 13:57, 14 June 2010 (→‎campbellpharmacy.net: ?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|367969892#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)


    Carlo Scevola & Partners

    Please whitelist:

    • www.carloscevola.com

    Please remove the spam rating on the website www.carloscevola.com. Carlo Scevola & Partners is a well respected fiduciary company headquartered in Geneva, Switzerland, with branches in six continents. Carlo (the founder) actually wrote most of the content on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_company and it would be nice to be able to link to his website.

    Carlo's book, the offshore jurisdiction guide, is titled "Carlo Scevola, Offshore Jurisdictions Guide", and is referenced at the bottom of the aforementioned Wikipedia page. I would like to link to the actual book (www.carloscevola.com/offshore/book/book.php) instead of a page on Wikipedia that does not have any relevant information about said book http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781605944333. This book is based on jurisdiction guide which is helpful for Wikipedian's and also has informative content for encyclopedia.

    --Imdanielmario (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)Daniel MarioImdanielmario (talk) 05:56, 12 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • To request removal of an entire site from the blacklist, you need this page. If you are requesting that one or a few links from a blacklisted site be permitted, please specify which ones. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Note that this was cross wiki added by, probably indeed, the owner of the site. Wikipedia is NOT the place to promote a business (as was pointed out to the user). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:41, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    El Bombin

    Please whitelist:

    • www.elbombin.co.cc

    The previous url (elbombin.stuarthomfray.co.uk) was deemed acceptable as a WP:EL and after I changed hosting and lost my previous web address, I decided to re-upload my site to elbombin.co.cc. The content is still the same, of course, so links to any of the relevant pages on elbombin.co.cc should be acceptable WP:EL The specific page is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Reynolds_%28footballer_born_1881%29 but there may be other related pages on WP that I would need to edit too. --J4ckplug (talk) 17:56, 18 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    ezinearticles.com

    Editors on the article on the book Arguing with Idiots by Glenn Beck are desperate for reviews of the book. I'm not sure why this website is blacklisted but ezinearticles.com/?Glenn-Becks-Arguing-With-Idiots&id=4192055 could be useful for adding to the article. Ink Falls 21:37, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It's blacklisted because it's got limited editorial control and articles are essentially self-published (see WP:RS). Stifle (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that you need to respond to explain why the link should be included despite this; otherwise the request will be summarily denied. Stifle (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied for lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 13:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    OldUnreal.com

    I cannot find this website on the blacklist entries but alas, I still cannot reference it. The article where I want to reference this particular website (Specifically: oldunreal.com/oldunrealpatches.html) is Unreal. The changes I want to make to the article require that link as a reference to show where I retrieved the information about the latest Unreal patch. You can find my post I wish to make here: wiki.pastebin.com/ETKqfZHp. 74.13.32.41 (talk) 02:48, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    See MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/December_2008#oldunreal.com and

    I see quite serious abuse and meatpuppetry going on, so that was the reason why it was blacklisted in the first place. I am also not sure if this is an independent source for the info, so although I am not saying that this should not be whitelisted, I'd like some more input on this. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If you read the Unreal article you'll notice in the beginning it says the source code was given to a third party, OldUnreal IS that third party. oldunreal.com/cgi-bin/yabb2/YaBB.pl?board=227 Is where you can see development going on. Thanks, I hope I can get this approved. 74.13.32.41 (talk) 12:35, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That does not make the site an independent site for the information that you want to reference. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:40, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Unreal is a game from 1998 so a new patch won't make news on many websites. OldUnreal is a reliable source which Unreal users rely on for their updates on the Unreal community. The only other reference I know of about the 227 patch is hyper.dnsalias.net/files-patches.htm. Would that be a better site to reference? There are only TWO reliable sources left for Unreal and EpicGames has left the development up to the developers at OldUnreal so it's almost as good as citing EpicGames themselves. Are you saying if a major gaming company made an announcement on their website that they were developing a new game/patch, that website would not be a good website to reference for such information? Or have I misunderstood your point? 74.13.55.199 (talk) 20:52, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Well, I would call it a primary source, which does not have to be bad, but .. lets call it 'discouraged'. I would value some more input of other regulars on this. The original blacklisting was due to a form of abuse which which would make me hesitant to whitelist link, the text that is on that page is promoting, and it is, as I said, a primary source. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:09, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    No argument here, there is no better source, so I will wait for other input and hope this gets approved. The article is a version behind and the only way I know of to prove the latest version is with those two websites, thank you. 74.13.55.199 (talk) 20:34, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I would say this link is fairly harmless and would allow it. Stifle (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the circumstances, this is the most reliable source you are going to get for this info. I see no problem with whitelisting this specific page. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.aceshowbiz.com

    I would like that the link www.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00018345.html could be in the whitelist, because on it I found very important information about the article Forgive Me (Leona Lewis song) that I could not found on others websites, like the release of the music video, a cameo that a dance-crew made on it, and other things. The article is currently a good article nominee and those information is important. Thanks TbhotchTalk C. 01:37, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    And is that site a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Didn't you approved the same site (see below) before?. TbhotchTalk C. 16:46, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, but each whitelisting request is considered on its own merits. Stifle (talk) 08:27, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, it is reliable because, by common sense, have a fact (you can see the music video), like the JabbaWockeeZ cameo in one scene. TbhotchTalk C. 16:57, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The youtube video in that page has been removed for copyright infringement. Try playing it. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:03, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPexPgOO0so here is the official. TbhotchTalk C. 17:06, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.geo-enviro.co.cc/2009/11/carlin-type-gold-deposits-in-nevada.html

    Please allow link to this widely-cited Economic geology journal article. I'll add it to the Carlin–type gold deposit article as an external link. Nice recent review article, otherwise unavailable online. Annoying website, but full text. See Google Scholar search for cites. Pete Tillman 22:39, 3 June 2010 (UTC), Consulting Geologist, Arizona and New Mexico (USA)

    • How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 08:37, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Economic Geology is the principal American journal of that field. --Pete Tillman 02:06, 5 June 2010 (UTC)
      Most half-decent journals use a .com or .org TLD, rather than a .co.cc. This seems odd. Stifle (talk) 20:54, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      This appears to be an individual's blog-type site, hosted at (blogger profile). I'm assuming it's an authorized reprint -- I guess I'll email the senior author, who I know slightly. Maybe she has a cleaner copy we can use. --Pete Tillman 20:28, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
      Best that we cite the article directly from an official site. This could be a copyvio. Stifle (talk) 14:01, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.mapsofworld.com/referrals/internet/web-browsers/historical-browsers/arena.html

    Please allow following link for the Arena (web browser) article, that this web browser was widely used in the beginning of the World Wide Web. mabdul 15:21, 7 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Please white list following pages

    Some trolls spammed the wikipedia with the site alhajowaisrazaqadri.com ,so someone blocked the whole site including all sub page.Please unalock them,i want to creat an article List of albums of Muhammad Owais Raza Qadri,so i need these links as reference:

    1. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album.htm
    2. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album15/nabi-ka-jashen-aya.htm
    3. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album14/karam-mangta-ho.htm
    4. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album13/tum-per-salaam-har-dam.htm
    5. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album12/taiba-ke-jane-wale.htm
    6. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album11/rang-de-maula.htm
    7. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album10/mah-e-noor-ka-hallal.htm
    8. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album09/aaqa-ka-millad-aaya.htm
    9. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album08/maqabat-e-ahlabat.htm
    10. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album07/allah-hu-allah-hu.htm
    11. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album06/main-so-jaon.htm
    12. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album05/aya-hai-bulawa.htm
    13. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album04/ya-sayedi.htm
    14. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album03/al-nabi-salu-alai.htm
    15. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album02/main-sadqay-ya-rasool-allah.htm
    16. www.alhajowaisrazaqadri.com/naat-album01/stage-naat-album.htm

    CoercorashTalkContr. 02:50, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a compelling benefit to Wikipedia to link every single one of those. I might allow the first one though. Stifle (talk) 13:58, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As you can see,The links from 2nd to last give details about when the album was released and how many nasheed songs it contains,plus what are the names of nasheed songs.
    The 1st link contains list of albums,so it'll be not sufficient as i'm listing the list of nasheed songs of albums too.Plus if i give only one reference to it,my article can be Deleted.
    It'll nice if you unblock the whole website or just the list of pages i provided.
    CoercorashTalkContr. 04:25, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Per Stifle, and given that the information is available on his official site here. OhNoitsJamie Talk 15:05, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/x-5766-NY-New-Media-Events-Examiner~y2009m4d5-The-new-economy-presents-film-festivals-the-opportunity-to-become-content-providers

    Hello all. I know that the examiner.com is blacklisted, perhaps with good reason, but this particular article from The Washington Examiner will be of use to a future page for AmericaFreeTV, which I am working out in my sandbox at the moment: User:PericlesofAthens/Draft for AmericaFreeTV. Please consider whitelisting this specific URL, as it contains an important announcement about a partnership with the Boulder International Film Festival that I would like to use. Thank you.--Pericles of AthensTalk 18:27, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    mappery.com/map-of/Heard-Island-and-McDonald-Islands-Map

    I am not sure why this site would be blacklisted, as it appears on the surface to be not only harmless, but in fact a quite useful and reliable source. I would like to add this "Map of Heard Island and McDonald Islands" to the "External links" section of several articles on the geography of Heard Island and McDonald Islands. Please consider whitelisting this URL. DiverDave (talk) 05:45, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done Many maps sites are blocked because they're simply aggregaters of info available elsewhere. In this case, the same map is available at the official site. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:18, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.whale.to/b/hawke.html

    The stevia article has lost one of its critical references, which is no longer accessible due to the site requiring a login ID. That reference is here. This link used to bring up a lengthy, detailed, and well-referenced PDF article about the controversies surrounding the stevia plant.

    That article is reproduced on www.whale.to/b/hawke.htm. Unfortunately, that page (or the whole site whale.to) is blocked.

    Please permit that link to exist as a reference on stevia. I am unable to find an alternative source except for a couple of forum sites that quote the article. That was one of the more useful references in the stevia article. I don't anticipate the need for that reference in other Wikipedia articles, just stevia. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 11 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Denied, site appears to be carrying content in violation of owner's copyright. Stifle (talk) 11:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    SalfEnergy.co.cc

    SalfEnergy.co.cc is my website. I would like to link to it on my userpage.

    I do not know why it is blocked. It is quite a new website... — Preceding unsigned comment added by SalfEnergy (talk • contribs)

     Denied, request does not specify which article the link would be used in. Appears to be advertising. Stifle (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    yachtpals.com/zac-sunderland-record-4178

    I am unsure why yachtpals.com has been blacklisted, however the site contains an article on Zac Sunderland with a quote from John Reed the secretary of the WSSRC explaining why the route did not meet their round the world criteria. just wondering if this particular page can be whitelisted so that the quote from John Reed can be referenced in the Zac Sunderland wiki article.

    yachtpals.com/zac-sunderland-record-4178

    thanks Jeremlurker (talk) 23:20, 13 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 11:54, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    campbellpharmacy.net

    This site is the Graduate site for the Campbell University School of Pharmacy. The only real reason I care for it to be whitelisted is so that the Campbell University School of Pharmacy wikipedia page can have the most update-to-date information.

    Thanks, --Savagemic (talk) 13:39, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    That one was difficult to find. This is caught by 'llpharm' on meta, a very old rule. consider  Done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:57, 14 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved Requests

    www.bukisa.com/articles/274901_now-thats-what-i-call-steampunk-steampunk-music-on-wax-cylinder

    I wish to unblock this page as I am writing an article on the album Now That's What I Call Steampunk! Volume 1. This article contains an interview with one of the people behind the album, who help to make a wax cylinder version of the album - the first such of its kind in Britain since the 1920s. I hope that it will be useful when the article go up online and for the article on the band behind the album, The Men That Will Not Be Blamed For Nothing. ISD (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes that a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The Colorado Springs Independent, which I would argue is a reliable source, links to this article in one of their blogs, written by the paper's music editor. Also, as this is an interview, I would argue that it is a news story and not an opinion piece. ISD (talk) 16:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I've just found this similar interview from the BBC on their Pods and Blogs podcast. It contains some information from the article I'm trying to whitelist, but it is also missing some information. ISD (talk) 18:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I am inclined to allow this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:49, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. ISD (talk) 14:20, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved Stifle (talk) 09:15, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.aceshowbiz.com

    I have found this website helpful in expanding articles such as To the Sky and need it again to cite info in Dre (album) and I have never been spammed from it. STAT- Verse 01:22, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • What exact link would you like to cite? (Leave out the http part to post it here.) Stifle (talk) 10:19, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    imagescoastalbend.com

    {{cite news | author=Sharon H. Fitzgerald | title=Texas Tea Flows Well in Coastal Bend | url=http://imagescoastalbend.com/index.php/site/articles/business_climate/texas_tea_flows_well_in_coastal_bend | work=Business Images Coastal Bend | date=March 21, 2007 | accessdate=16 May 2010}}

    reference for use in article: Atlantis PQ. --emerson7 21:22, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am minded to allow this request and will do so in a few days unless I see a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done Stifle (talk) 13:31, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com (specific pages)

    1. I would like the following interview to be unblocked:

    examiner.com/x-6336-Orlando-Entertainment-Examiner~y2009m11d3-Michelle-Obamas-double-is-Youtube-sensation
    so I can quote it the Wikipedia article on actor and Barack Obama-impersonator Iman Crosson. The examiner.com article is a fairly extensive (1a) interview of Michelle Obama-impersonator Vernetta Jenkins, that sheds light on two of the spoof videos made by Crosson. The interview is (1b) quite specific in its details, and similar material doesn't turn up elsewhere on my Google search (Jenkins doesn't seem to be as notable as Crosson). (1c) Based on my knowledge of Crosson's videos, the interview appears responsible and credible. From above other discussion on this page, I've just become aware of general problems with examiner.com but this interview article doesn't seem to be written for quick-clicks. (1d) I plan to include what interviewee Jenkins says about the political (Obama vs. Fox News) content--(1e) since it's an interview, it doesn't have the credibility/reliability issues that it would if cited for what the page's author claimed. RCraig09 (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Examiner.com has no editorial oversight and generally fails WP:RS. What makes these articles different? Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    To Stifle (talk): What makes the first article different is (mainly) the fact that it is an interview and will not be relied on for what the examiner.com writer says, so "editorial oversight" (or lack thereof) is not a real issue in this article. I presented this and other reasons above (especially, please read items (1a) (1b) (1c) (1d) (1e) above, & at least skim the article itself--I'm not asking for all of examiner.com). Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Supplemental FYI: I also plan to use the examiner.com article to (1) reference the photo description specifying it is Jenkins who is pictured with Crosson (in red jacket), and to (2) provide additional support for text that 'Thriller' parody video was previewed on Entertainment Tonight (this fact already supported by another independent reference). RCraig09 (talk) 19:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm inclined to approve the above request and will do so in a few days unless I get a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 13:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved Stifle (talk) 09:13, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    2. Secondarily (somewhat less critical), I would also like the following page to be unblocked: examiner.com/x-704-Pop-Media-Examiner~y2009m11d5-Obama-impersonator-does-Michael-Jacksons-Thriller-Fox-News-is-Thriller-video so I can quote its observation in the Iman Crosson article: "Everything from the concept to the costumes, indicates that while keeping the parody close to the original 'Thriller' was intended, it is more a message on Fox News and Obama." . . . . . Thanks. RCraig09 (talk) 06:20, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Request re second article: withdrawn. RCraig09 (talk) 18:00, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    metapedia.org

    Could we get this site (or perhaps just the homepage) whitelisted for the Metapedia (encyclopedia) article? The article would benefit from a link to the subject's homepage, and perhaps other pages within the site for primary referencing. ThemFromSpace 03:12, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you provide a full link to the homepage, is it about.php, index.htm, ...? Stifle (talk) 11:13, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Well I can't link to the homepage because it's blacklisted (which is why I'm here). The full address is http://www.metapedia.org/ ThemFromSpace 07:55, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      We need something after the / in order to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Main_Page Would that work? The article also references http://en.metapedia.org/w/index.php?title=Main_Page&dir=prev&action=history and http://en.metapedia.org/wiki/Metapedia:Mission_statement ThemFromSpace 15:31, 5 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      Approved Stifle (talk) 15:13, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    algaecenter.com

    I don't know how relevant other additions to articles relating to Soley Biotechnology Institute and its related biotech websites are, but this one was added to the 'links' section of Botryococcus_braunii, and though a misplaced link, it is appropriate as it is a source of specimens of this algae. If the institute is bunk or thieves or whatever, that's a separate issue. I was the one that started the Botryoccus braunii article some years ago and have been the primary editor. I request that www.algaecenter.com/culture-collection.html be whitelisted. I have no connection to this organisation. Bobkeyes (talk) 23:56, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Seems reasonable; I am going to leave this request open for a few days in case other users have an opinion, but I am minded to approve it. Stifle (talk) 11:14, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, a few days has passed. Or do you want to leave more time? Bobkeyes (talk) 21:12, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Approved Stifle (talk) 10:21, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    commonpurpose.org.uk

    commonpurpose.org.uk is the website of registered UK charity Common Purpose UK and it seems reasonable to extlink to this website in that article. It is caught by a blacklist rule for commonpurpose.org. (commonpurpose.org seems to be the international version of the charity, and I don't understand why that should be black-listed, but that is not an immediate problem.) Rwendland (talk) 23:47, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Additional info: it looks from the original blocking discussion[1] the reason was because one IP user added www.commonpurpose.org to about 12 articles internationally (about 6 of the listed edits are for adding the unrelated nourishkefir.co.uk). If this is the only reason, it seems a rather drastic measure for one IP's action in 2008. Rwendland (talk) 12:20, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Hmm, have you been following the article itself? What was it .. diff (note, this specific IP is not registered to Common Purpose UK, but in the edit history one can find several that are). Bottomline, they are very aware that Wikipedia is a good place to keep themselves visible, and do a lot to make sure that it stays clean. Please be careful with this site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 21:02, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Yep, the article is poor. Common Purpose UK is a new organisation to me and I'm not pro or against it. But there seems to be vociferous lobbies against Common Purpose UK, two of whom the article extlinks to. One of the current extlinks says on its front page says "Common Purpose is a Bilderberg-type group for upper and middle management implementing the Agenda 21, sustainable development and Communitarian policies of the New World Order and is being used to form a New World Order control grid in the UK." If we have extlinks like that, I think we should permit some balance with an extlink to the charity itself. This is a substantial registered charity with a turnover of about £7 million a year, run by extremely substantial trustees (eg major business leaders, a Bishop), (see commonpurpose.org.uk/about/governance) warranting reasonable coverage in WP. The content of commonpurpose.org.uk does not seem objectionable in any way, so it seems very strange we should block extlinks to it. Rwendland (talk) 21:56, 24 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Wait!!

    on en:

    (note, this (COI) IP is, next to massive spamming, involved in said cleaning, with removing an external link because the website linked to contains texts that this editor disagrees with ("Unfortunately states "Common Purpose is a criminal organisation". Accusation of criminal activity would incur legal challenges - safer to remove."), while the wording of the link itself is neutral ("A Critique without CP Marketing Propaganda"). Then they make the link less neutral by doing this, so it reads "A Critique by UKIP fringe group EUTruth" .. the former is a problem that CommonPurpose has with the eutruth.org.uk site, not with Wikipedia, while in the latter edit I could see that that wording would be problematic for Wikipedia)

    The (globally) blacklisted regex is \bcommonpurpose\.org\b, which also catches commonpurpose.org.uk. The former of the two (the .org) was spammed quite aggressively, the .uk is 'collateral damage'. Both were spammed aggressively.

    Nonetheless, what I meant, Rwendland, is that Common Purpose is actively promoting their organisation on Wikipedia. Though I agree that Common Purpose UK 'deserves' a link to their organisation, that is just part of the problem. Any link we whitelist here, can be used throughout en.wikipedia. If we whitelist the mainpage, this is again possible, or worse.

    I would not consider the spamming/promotional campaign to be over. Maybe we should whitelist a specific about.php or index.htm in this case? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    If I understand the situation correctly from the above, only one IP user (a Common Purpose UK IP) has been involved in this spamming of commonpurpose.org* (in about 12 edits)? Doesn't Wikipedia:Spam blacklist say in such a case blocking the single user is the appropriate action to solve the problem? Since this all happened in 2008, isn't the appropriate measure now to step-down action to the XLinkBot as per suggested at Wikipedia:Spam blacklist and User:XLinkBot? As I understand it COI issues should be resolved ultimately by blocking the user; I cannot see in WP:COI where it says COI issues will be extending it into blocking URLs on the SPAM blacklists. Rwendland (talk) 20:06, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    NB I noticed that the existing whitelist already allows www.commonpurpose.org.uk/home/aboutus.aspx, so I've used that as an Official website URL. That's good enough for my immediate need. But it still seems to me that this URL should move to XLinkBot, as I read the current policy. Rwendland (talk) 21:03, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, have you read the www.eutruth.org.uk/cp.pdf document you criticised the COI IP user for removing links to? I just have. Two unsubstantiated quotes, clearly unfounded, are "Common Purpose specifically targets children from the age of 13, and more recently age 4, for sex or ..." and "A typical story is a husband describing the decline in his wife from the time she becomes a Common Purpose graduate. Loss of sparkle, enthusiasm, anxious and ‘changed’, and she initiated a divorce." It seems to me perfectly proper for such a link to be removed from WP, even if the IP comes from the organisation concerned. (NB you have left links to this doc above.) Rwendland (talk) 13:57, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Rwendland, as I explained, the issue was not commonpurpose.org.uk only, the issue was commonpurpose.org, the .uk site was indeed spammed on a lesser scale, but both are related to the same organisation (and were in fact spammed by the same COI IP). The issue was cross-wiki and hence blocking the IP (especially in 2008) was not a solution (that option was unavailable in 2008), XLinkBot would only have done en.wikipedia (and actually has, as it is (or maybe was) on XLinkBot's revertlist). There are several warnings, 2 of XLinkBot and a some of other editors on en.wikipedia (which shows persistence), the link was already blacklisted on other wikis (then and still on pt.wikipedia, now also on pt.wikiquote), there are WT:WPSPAM discussions about it. So at that time, global blacklisting the link was the only solution. Also note that there is a second editor involved in this, who, by editing, has shown to be using the IP in question.
    Secondly, I am not opposing whitelisting, I was only mentioning to be careful with it (though I think that the COI editor knows what the problem is, and will probably not repeat this). --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:10, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Whitelisting seems in order here for a homepage or an about page, such as index.htm, but not for the whole domain. Can someone please specify an appropriate home or about page? Stifle (talk) 11:15, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There is existing whitelisting to now broken urls:
    \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk/System/aspx/GetFile\.aspx\?id=5903\b
    \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk/home(?:/aboutus(?:/sponsors)?|/programmes)?\.aspx\b # /home\.aspx\b per http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Spam_blacklist&oldid=955351#commonpurpose.org.uk
    Some of those unreliably redirect to other pages, but they no longer seem useful. For the immediate issue of a simple Official website extlink changing those to the about page:
    \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk/about\b
    would do. It would allow access to the entire about sub-tree, but AFAICS that was not subject to previous spamming. Rwendland (talk) 12:31, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I'm inclined to approve that request and will do so in a few days unless a reason not to emerges. Stifle (talk) 10:27, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Good. NB if you do that you can also delete the rule for the David Bell article: \bwww\.commonpurpose\.org\.uk\/about\/governance\/david-bell\b Rwendland (talk) 10:40, 4 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Approved Stifle (talk) 15:14, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied Requests

    www.gosun.co.cc/2010/05/18/proxy-servers-what-are-they/

    I request this specific link to be whitelisted so that reference to this content may be added by other users so that it may assist readers of topics realted to Computer and IT, more specifically, to Proxy_server page.

    Thank You

    Amol Bhave

    Amol Bhave 09:49, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

    What makes this a reliable source and how does it not violate WP:ELNO item 1? Stifle (talk) 13:57, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Why does it violate? It is completely original content related to Proxy_server Amol Bhave 15:38, 27 May 2010 (UTC)
    Amol, that was not the question, we did not say that it was not completely original content. We were asking, if this can, in Wikipedia terms, be regarded a reliable source (note, that does not say that it is not true or is not correct, but if it follows that guideline), and how this adds something to the page that can not be incorporated (see WP:ELNO, #1, also read the intro of the external links guideline). There is a lot of info out there which is original, informational, etc. etc., but we are not a place where we collect links, and a lot of the info out there is, albeit correct, not suitable for use as a reference. The question hence is, how is this a reliable source, and how does it not violate WP:ELNO#1. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:23, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • This request is liable to be summarily denied unless a reply is given to the challenge above. Stifle (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    aboutmyarea.co.uk

    I tried to use an article hosted there as a reference on UK telephone code misconceptions. Specifically, www.aboutmyarea.co.uk/West-Yorkshire/Leeds/LS7/News/Local-News/150288-Leeds-Telephone-Number-Update -- Smjg (talk) 23:46, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 13:08, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    note: please be careful with this; user maintained site where the users/owners have, repeatedly, used several (or better: many) single purpose sock accounts to spam links (which happily continued/restarted after a delisting of the site). No specific remarks on the specific link, but please keep it specific if done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    davidpan.co.cc

    I tried to link to a nice random walk generator applet on this site, but wikipedia says co.cc is on the spam blacklist. I was going to put the link on the random walk wiki article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.97.179.205 (talk) 02:38, 20 May 2010 (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) 13:25, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Mwaagh .. If people need a random grid generator, they should use Google, if people want information about what a random grid generator does, they should be on Wikipedia. I am not sure how you want to use this link, could you elaborate a bit more about it. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:33, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Denied for lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    LMGTFY.com

    The LMGTFY.com link - ought to be added to LMGTFY's sub-entry under RTFM. Might not look good in any other article, but fine there. Thanks, --Let Us Update Wikipedia: Dusty Articles 06:54, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What link, exactly? Stifle (talk) 15:11, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Just the link to the main page of it: www.lmgtfy.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by LUUWDA (talk • contribs) 11:54, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    How would that link help the RTFM article? I see no reason to add it. Johnuniq (talk) 10:54, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Concur with Johnuniq; no Declined Stifle (talk) 10:18, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]


    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

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

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


    As the site at http://home.mysoul.com.au/graemecook/ has not closed down and this appears to be permanent, those pages that do not change need not be on iblogger.org (I no longer have access to change them).

    Instead I have added two more digital books to iblogger.org: "1815, Waterloo" by Henry Houssaye, 1905 and "The battle of Wavre and Grouchy's retreat; a study of an obscure part of the Waterloo campaign" by Hyde Kelly 1905.

    Graeme Cook (talk) 04:50, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Are there any questions?

    210.1.205.94 (talk) 07:04, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Perhaps I could get decisions for each of the 4 sub-domains? Graeme Cook (talk) 06:55, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    "Copyright notices requiring permission to reproduce have only been placed when requested." That's not how copyright works. You have to get permission and provide proof unless you can show that the copyright is expired. Stifle (talk) 15:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Dear Stifle,

    So, please give a decision for each sub-domain. Graeme Cook (talk)

    They are all no Declined due to failure to produce evidence that the sites do not carry content in violation of owners' copyright. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]


    Dear Stifle, Would you be so kind as to delete these dead links: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special%3ASearch&redirs=1&search=geocities.com%2Fdutcheastindies%2F&fulltext=Search&ns0=1 and any material that depends on these references?

    Graeme Cook (talk) 03:19, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone can do that. Stifle (talk) 13:30, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    But who will if you do not? 210.1.205.233 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    countryguidebook.com

    1.I wish to remove this page from whitelist or blocklist. This is not a spam site it is regularly maintained and updated. It is also not marketing. On this page are only picture that can be usefull for everybody. This page was deleted by someone on regularly base without any messages and then blocked. I add long time ago some links that where accepted but then someone deleted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citiesname (talk • contribs) 14:00, 5 May 2010

    • This page is for requesting that one or a few named links from an otherwise blocked website be permitted for use on articles. Please specify the links that you would use, or to request removal from the blacklist entirely, you need MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    I dont know which one of those are block as I did not get the record. It is only written that the page: countryguidebook. com www.countryguidebook.com/Poland/Photogallery/Gdansk.html www.countryguidebook.com/China/Photogallery/Shanghai.html www.countryguidebook.com/Dominican%20Republic/Photogallery/Punta%20Cana.html However I wanted to add the links above as there are very good and high quality free of charge pictures. So it is very useful for this encyclopedie —Preceding unsigned comment added by Citiesname (talk • contribs) 08:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done We get aggragator spam sites like this all the time. There's plenty of free official/org links with the same info available. OhNoitsJamie Talk

    Ok there is still not reason for blocking the page. This is not spam site. It is not so easy to find so well organized photo gallery of cities. This page and pictures are also free. Official pages do not have so nice slected and well organized pictures. You get tired of finding a nice pictures from this area. So I though I could help with this page (photogallery) to all visitors of wikipedia to see what they are looking for some nice pictures from Shanghai, Gdansk and Punta Cana. Actually before I went to Torun I found this page and helped me to see lot of places that I did not found in any other pages. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.186.239 (talk) 12:29, 9 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It may not be spam, it got massively spammed (see Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam/LinkReports/countryguidebook.com). Editors can request whitelisting for specific links where the need exists, but in this way, no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:27, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Ok I see, someone exagarate in adding it. But anyway I think the photogalleries are very nice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.118.185.54 (talk) 11:21, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    biarmia.narod.ru

    I have edited Murmansk_Railway because there had been a mistake regarding the length of the line and, as well, a misleading wording about the facts who has built it (not only German POWs). Now I would like to add two references from a very good and serious Russian website: (1) biarmia.narod.ru/library/doc/zh_d.html and (2) biarmia.narod.ru/img/1943/1943.html. Unfortunately I am not allowed, probably because any Russian website seems to be blocked. Contact: I am the German User CaptainTom - 87.185.242.205 (talk) 08:49, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 18:15, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, to be honest, if I take all that rules then one might possibly say, that they're not reliable because they are simply private and do not have any scientific background - although they are the best website on history of the Kola peninsula that I know. I work a lot on geographics of northern Russia and in particular Kola (Biarmia is an old name for the Kola peninsula) and I have very often found helpful information and particularly charts on that website, because they have a complete sample (the best I have ever found on the internet) of historical charts from the mediaval age up to now. And many people on the internet seem to set links to that website, because they have a Google Page Rank of 5/10.
    One of the charts is the one of the Murmansk Railway. And it says that the length of the railway is 1,448 kilometers. Yesterday I came from Murmansk to Saint Peterburg by that train and afterwards I was sure that Wikipedia was wrong when telling me that the length is 1,068 kilometers long. It is even impossible because the direct distance between 60° N and 68° 55' N is already 990 kilometers, but there are many lakes to be circumnavigated (one is Lake Ladoga, the largest lake in Europe). Also I found a German article cited by the official German arctic research institute AWI (awi.de), saying that the railway is 1,451 kilometers long (see: epic.awi.de/Publications/Polarforsch1940_2_2.pdf p.2). So why should I have any doubt that my reference, which is the chart and not the website should not be unreliable?
    The other reference from the same website (my first link of the two) is telling that Russia began to built the railway with russian workers and later changed more and more to POWs. This information can also be found in a German book written by the historian Dr. Reinhard Nachtigal from the university of Freiburg in 2001. You can read a summary (telling exactly that fact) here: www.eisenbahn-webkatalog.de/news/index.php?newsid=184 - unfortunately in German and just as a summary on the website of a book seller, which is not a citeable source. Nevertheless this book is the reference for the German wikipedia article. So the reliability of the information is without any doubt. That's the reason why I find the Russian website reliable in this particular point as well. By the way: The author of that Russian article is Ivan Ushakov, Doctor of Historical Sciences, Professor of Murmansk State Pedagogical University, member of Russian Academy of Pedagogical and Social Sciences (tinyurl.com/34nthkg).
    So, again I ask you for whitelisting the Russian website or the two documents. 87.185.242.205 (talk) 20:28, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done In Russian, and as such not particularly useful for en Wikipedia. Furthermore, no evidence that this would easily qualify as a WP:Reliable source. OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:57, 8 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    toutpondi.com for new article Emanci

    A new article was created today but its source that comes from the number one ghit. Why is it spam listed and could this link be white-listed? --Morenooso (talk) 07:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    As far as i have been able to find the only pages on toutpondi.com with any mention of Emanci are two unambiguous advertisements for Emanci. JamesBWatson (talk) 13:34, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    The institute has its website on that site. Wikipedia's blacklist will not permit it to be listed. --Morenooso (talk) 14:00, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    There should be a means to have it listed as a source and this mediawiki is what get it whitelisted. Very little WP:RS sources are available for this article. Like every article, it should be able to have its own website as in the Sources section. --Morenooso (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Please provide an "about" or similar page that we can look at. Stifle (talk) 18:14, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, it helps to provide the full path to the sub-page you want whitelisted. Using Google, I located www.toutpondi.com/emanci_language_institute/en/index.html - is this the specific sub-page you are wanting whitelisted? --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 18:34, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done; no reply, assuming request is abandoned. Stifle (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/x-5468-NY-Media-Examiner~y2010m4d11-John-Bell-disappointed-with-firing-from-Z100

    I am trying to put together the article John Bell (radio personality) but, I need this specific link whitelisted in order to have some citation on the page. I am trying to create the article with reference for his history about his career. --Radical Edward2 (talk) 03:47, 2 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    • Examiner.com is not a reliable source as a general rule. As a result, I am inclined to deny this request but will leave it open for a few days in case there are other views. Stifle (talk) 17:30, 3 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied Stifle (talk) 18:22, 7 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Where is the discussion and reasoning behind the decision it is unreliable? Alatari (talk) 05:51, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • The site allows anyone to contribute with minimal editorial oversight, and also offers financial incentives to increase page views. The matter has been discussed at great length (including for example here). Stifle (talk) 13:34, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

    www.examiner.com/x-5738-Political-Buzz-Examiner~y2009m11d24-Video--Glenn-Beck-plans-rally-at-Lincoln-Memorial-on-anniversary-of-MLKs-I-Have-a-Dream-speech

    Due to my lack of skills surfing through the blacklist logs I can not find the discussion where this website was blacklisted. It looks like a normal local Saint Louis Missouri newspaper. Alatari (talk) 18:32, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not. It is basically a site where everyone can sign up, and start writing articles. Additionally to that, those writers earn money every time someone accesses the document that was written (and links to articles were added for that reason, and whitelisting/deblacklisting was requested for that reason). Furthermore, the site was spammed (albeit on a small scale) as well by, what appeared to be, (a) site owner(s), and they, deliberately, make (or made) the site look like a 'normal' newspaper. The fact that anyone can write a document there, makes a lot of the information unreliable, and often the information is also available elsewhere.
    That being said, there is certainly (some) good information on the site, information that is reliable and unique. Whitelisting will be granted easily on those merits. Do you think that this information is suitable for referencing certain information? Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:22, 25 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Thankyou for that LinkSummary template. I learned another new function of Wikipedia. In this case I have found other reliable sources. Thanks for your opinion. Alatari (talk) 09:14, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

    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)[reply]
    So is that a no then?--Bailo26 (talk) 02:25, 4 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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)[reply]
    • 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
    As I said, if it's a significant story then it will be covered somewhere other than the forums. WP:NOR means we don't take stuff direct from the primary source, as a rule, and comments about such issues on the forums are unlikely to be reliable or neutral without the context that would be provided by independent coverage. Guy (Help!) 16:26, 5 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    www.google.com/cse/home?cx=004453055800956638747:6ed0u5bnolu&hl=en

    I understand why the custom search engines from Google are blocked. However, I have tried to share this link with the Video Game and Pokémon project, and some have suggested I com here so that it can be linked to. This search engine searches only sources listed as reliable video game sources on WP:VG/RS, and can thus be invaluable in finding reception and development data where it is harder to do, and all sources are guaranteed reliable already, provided one makes sure to skip over user-generate content on these sites. In short, I believe it can be a good resource if it could be linked to and made available to a wider range of editors. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Just post it in the exact same way as you have added it here. Stifle (talk) 11:00, 30 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I did, it was just suggested to me to come here so as to make it easier on everyone. かんぱい！ Scapler (talk) 08:41, 1 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    storz-bickel.com

    I ran into a small situation at Storz & Bickel where I tried to NPOV the article. I added the company profile as a reference (it had been used as the reference to begin with but was never ref'd). I forgot to add the {{reflist}} template though and when I tried to add it in a second edit, it was prevented by the spam filter. A link to the company website is already included as EL. --78.34.111.249 (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Can we get a link to an index or about page? I am reluctant to whitelist the whole domain. Stifle (talk) 08:40, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean by index or about page. The specific subpage I wanted to include is /vaporiser/storz-bickel-company-vaporiser-manufacturer.html if that helps. --87.79.173.212 (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That's the "Company" page, which works as an "About us" page. It looks like an appropiate link. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:44, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Very likely moot, therefore withdrawing request. --87.79.173.212 (talk) 20:05, 4 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    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)[reply]

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

    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)[reply]

    • 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)[reply]


    paulini.freeforums.org

    I would like this website to be allowed to be accessed through wikipedia because it is useful for those who vist the article of Paulini of which the site will be placed in the extended links category for those who do not know anything about this site. Therefore they will see it and will know about the site. Hoping you understand & hopefully for it to be allowed. Thank you Ozurbanmusic 00:59, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

    1) It's a forum with a grand total of less than 10 topics posted. It is a link to be avoided.
    2) You listed this in sites to reblock.
    no Declined MER-C 06:08, 21 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    An IP randomly blanked the page Bas-Rhin and I tried to revert it, but it wasn't allowed since apparently the original version contained a blacklisted link. So I removed the link and reverted the page blanking, but there's a hidden message on the page saying "please don't remove this link, it goes back to Wikipedia" or something, so I don't know what to do. 71.113.42.236 (talk) 03:07, 22 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

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

    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)[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=367969892"