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 08:19, 30 May 2011 (→‎www.musiklife.co.cc/2011/03/jurang-pemisah-antara-prestasi-dan.html: re). 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|431617608#section_name}}

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

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

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     Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}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

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (sites to unblock)


    www.getzclubuk.freeforums.org

    I feel i should be able to add this link to the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Getz as i feel it could benifit your users as it is on topic, could help visitors with problems or just for people to share a common interest. The forum is non profit and free to join. Thankyou Ive been a member for years but forgot my password for my old account. --Lukeecfc (talk) 16:50, 20 April 2011 (UTC) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyundai_Getz[reply]

     Not done Forums are rarely appropriate links for Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 18:06, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.google.com/c se/home?cx=010426977372765398405:wxgrrvga3na&hl=en

    Previously, I created a Reliable Sources Search Engine which was white listed back in November 2010.[1] An editor at WikiProject Film has requested that I create a similar custom search engine but only for the sources listed at WP:FILMRES. I would like this search engine to be white listed. Just to be clear, I don't want to use this in any article, just article talk pages and project pages and project talk. Basically, the same whitelisting that was already done for my Reliable Source Search Engine. Thanks. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 00:16, 24 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is exactly why I was not willing to approve the CSE last time out, because there will now be a pile of similar requests. Can you not just put www.google.com/cse/home?cx=010426977372765398405:wxgrrvga3na&hl=en (which won't be blocked) on the talk/wikipedia/wikipedia talk pages? Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw my request. A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 19:44, 26 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lulu.com

    • I'd like to cite a self-published book available only on this website. It contains extensive OpenSceneGraph usage statistics, history, anf API feature information. I understand this might look like self-promotion because I am the author of the book, but note that PDF downloads of the book are free; I receive no royalties for those. The article is currently quite skimpy and I'd like to add some meat to it. Whitelisting this book is pretty much the only way I can add references with my edits. Alternately, I can cite the book without the URL, if you all think that's best.
    • Specific link: www.lulu.com/product/file-download/openscenegraph-quick-start-guide/1144915?
    • PaulMartz (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I withdraw this request. Now I see why whitelist requests are often denied for new users like me. I have no clue what I'm doing. After digging in to the appropriate way to add a citation, I see a link to the book's web site isn't necessary. Also, I personally feel that even the *appearance* of a conflict of interest should probably be avoided, so I will not be citing my own book (even if it's the only reference available). Thanks, hope I didn't waste too much of your time. PaulMartz (talk) 15:05, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No problem. Withdrawal noted. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    www.charlierose.com

    This is a PBS in-depth interview show, the most respected on TV. Some External link templates use it. Some BOT put it on the blacklist with zero human checking. Brilliant. Obviously it should be removed, so I posted there - and NOTHING has been done so far. Since the instructions are incredibly unclear, I'm now posting here as well. In the meantime, I can't update any of the templates for members of Congress without DELETING this field, which would be counter-productive. Yes, I am furious about this. Am I supposed to list Glenn Beck 'chalkboard talks' instead? I don't see him on the blacklist. Flatterworld (talk) 17:06, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Can you please provide the exact link you want to have whitelisted? Stifle (talk) 20:35, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    WWW.CHARLIEROSE.COM - clue: it's in the heading. (I can't wait until this debacle hits the blogs.) Flatterworld (talk) 23:29, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    No need for the attitude; when I posted the question the header said charlierose.com, and the line below said ibanez.co.jp, which was not at all clear. Additionally, this whitelist page is normally used for requesting delisting of one or a few specific links rather than a full site. Stifle (talk) 13:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm ..  Defer to Global blacklist for delisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:36, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:53, 12 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    bahrainrights.hopto.org/en/node/3864

    I am trying to update 2011 Bahraini protests and used the above link as a source but it appears to be blocked and a blacklisted site.Hope you can allow this site or whitelist it. It is in fact a Human Rights site but it is another link to the official one because the official Bahrain Human Rights site is blocked so we bahrainis can't use it.It is actually a very important source because it is a reliable one. Manaf Ali (talk) 12:35, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Very old item on the meta blacklist, hardly ever requested. Bit curious, but I found seemingly the same content on http://www.bahrainrights.org/en, maybe that is useful? --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:01, 14 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    well that's what i said"It is in fact a Human Rights site but it is another link to the official one because the official Bahrain Human Rights site (http://www.bahrainrights.org/en) is blocked so we bahrainis can't use it." Manaf Ali (talk) 13:25, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Looks like a redirector/URL shortener. We don't normally allow these. Stifle (talk) 08:52, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done Stifle (talk) 11:14, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    bit.ly

    Now hold off on the decline! I am asking for something like is done on the TinyURL page for the bit.ly homepage. Currently, bit.ly cites technical restrictions for why it doesn't have a direct link, and this has been discussed on the talk page with arguments for and against a direct link. TinyURL *does* have a link (from the sidebar) that was previously blocked but has been successfully whitelisted in the past. So there aren't actually any technical problems that would prevent a direct link to the bit.ly homepage, which I feel is necessary for the same reason we have a link to the TinyURL homepage. I have read the archives and they don't take into account the TinyURL whitelisting (seen here).--Tim Thomason 01:53, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lets try, http://www.bit.ly/?main, for use in the bit.ly article only! please use the the exact format of http://www.bit.ly/?main, variations of this will not work. Thanks for the well stated request.  Done--Hu12 (talk) 17:34, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the approval, and the compliment on my request. I had a bit o' trouble at first, because I kept forgetting the "www", but it's since gone through and the page is fine now.--Tim Thomason —Preceding undated comment added 03:05, 30 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    www.justbie.com/patricia-pattie-lynn-mallette/534/

    I edited this page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/One_Less_Lonely_Girl but there was error from website I insert. I want to edit about pattie mallete, justin bieber's mother. Another Justin Bieber fans like me need to know who is Justin Bieber's mother, her biography and another else. I have searched in a few of search engine and get this website.— Okychan (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 15:31, 27 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]

    The link loaded then attempted to portal or redirect... what i saw prior to malicious code execution, fails wikipedias specific requirements of the External Links and Reliable Sources guidelines.no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 17:49, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/W3eoZmpiNS0

    I've written an article on the Civic, Christchurch, a Category II heritage building damaged in the 2011 Christchurch earthquake and about to be demolished. I intended to link to the YouTube video on the talk page, as it shows backstage footage, including an old vault. The purpose is to record these parts of this historic building that few people would have ever seen, and that is just about to be knocked over. Schwede66 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use the full URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3eoZmpiNS0 . no Declined MER-C 03:06, 30 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please allow: youtu.be/_TVQpxkN30o This is to be used for "gland excision" link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gynecomastia, found under the category of treatment. The readers who wish to view a specific treatment, relevant to the section and the subject matter of gynecomastia, will be able to do so, should this link be permitted. Thank you. DACDacopeland (talk) 18:24, 14 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use the full URL: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TVQpxkN30o. no Declined. MER-C 04:23, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lookchem.com/Chempedia/Chemical-Technology/Inorganic-Chemical-Technology/2986.html

    It is the only source I could find for fluorine production for fluorine article, and it's seems to be a RS. Since it's at FAC, and the unique nature of such link, I want it to be whitelisted--R8R Gtrs (talk) 17:14, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.google.com/ cse/home?cx=012474945078376839224:7balhzuvll8

    I'd like to get this link whitelisted for Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Novels, as I'd wish to alert them about the search engine, and ask if they know any other reliable sources so it can become even more useful. The custom search engine basically searches through the websites for The Guardian, The Times, Salon, The New York Times, The Independent, CNN and Entertainment Weekly. While not perfect, it should make reviews on books and the like easier to find. Harry Blue5 (talk • contribs) 01:29, 1 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    rochestergarden.co.cc

    I request that you unblock rochestergarden.co.cc. I understand that many people may abuse the co.cc domain, but Rochester Community Garden uses it as a way to get a free domain for a volunteer organization. If you look at our site, it is all about our community garden, and has absolutely nothing that could be considered spam or anything else that is harmful. We would like to link this article to the Rochester Community Garden page in Wikipedia. Thank you. Gpgardener (talk) 22:39, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see a Rochester Community Garden page. If you were planning on creating one, you'd need to indicate how it meets our notability guidelines. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:53, 22 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Gpgardener (talk) 03:53, 23 April 2011 (UTC)I did create the page and saved it and it said it was accepted after I removed the rochestergarden.co.cc link, but now it appears to be gone. I created it again. It looks like it is there.[reply]

    Just use the non-redirected version, http://www.thegreatest-love.com/rochestergarden/ , which isn't blocked. Stifle (talk) 15:07, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/disney-travel-in-national/media-monday-push-disney-s-talking-trash-can

    I request a specific page unblock for this specific page, and while I understand that the overarching concern over the vast majority of articles on this website do not meet the WP:N and WP:V policies, this article is overall very well balanced and informative. This specific author has presented information which cannot be found in any other well presented forum aside from very small stub articles, blogs or other informal presentations on the internet. The purpose of this article would be to provide a reference for the Push the Talking Trash Can article. I have no connection to the Examiner or any connection with the author of this material. Simply that it appears to be the best source of online formation pertaining to this subject. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:45, 3 May 2011 (UTC) Additional information, I have reviewed the /Common section, and suggest that this information is not commonly found elsewhere, but its experience and information is backed up by both YouTube videos (again, not specific RS), but should be sufficient for this content. This article contains more information than the following source which contains a little more than a stub reference [2]. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    insomnia.ac/commentary/gameplay/

    I request that this page be unblocked so that it can be used to reference information that would improve the article on Gameplay. --Rare Akuma (talk) 19:30, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    insomnia.ac/commentary/on_role-playing_games/

    I also would request that this page be unblocked. It is needed to reference some specific information that would be useful to add to Cultural differences sections of Role-playing video game and History of role-playing video games. --Rare Akuma (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    gwave-network.co.cc/

    This is the homepage for the prominent Burmese resistance youth movement Generation Wave (see their article for details and citations). It'd be useful to link to it from the Generation Wave article unless there's a compelling reason not to do so. -- Khazar (talk) 01:20, 8 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This one's headed for the front page via DYK in a day or two, and if possible I'd like to have the external link on for completeness on at that point. Is it possible for this entry to jump the remaining queue? Either way, thanks for all your hard work. -- Khazar (talk) 14:09, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Done. I have whitelisted the homepage only: http://www.gwave-network.co.cc/index.html. Only the link exactly as shown will work; any variation (such as without the www or without index.html) will be blocked. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:56, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the rush job! I'll add to article now. Cheers -- Khazar (talk) 15:57, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Lulu.com 2

    cl58services.co.cc

    This is a personal website of mine (not linked to before on Wikipedia - to my knowledge at least). I presume it is the co.cc that has been blocked, but I would like to add a link to the site on my User Page. Please allow cl58services.co.cc. If it is not possible to unblock the whole domain, please whitelist support.cl58services.co.cc/ (If you need a specific page, that is support.cl58services.co.cc/index.php). I understand that the link would not improve any article, but I would like my User Page to have a link to the site. Thanks. --Chris5858 19:38, 9 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined, requested link is not for use in the encyclopedia. You can use the link on your userpage in the same manner as used here. Stifle (talk) 11:13, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Television's Lost: Ten Lookalike Plane Crash & Survival TV Shows And Movies

    I would like to request this page, "Television's Lost: Ten Lookalike Plane Crash & Survival TV Shows And Movies" of the website be whitelisted in order to provide a reference for an article I have started on a little-known TV/Theatrical feature, Lost Flight. Since this film has been very scarcely mentioned in other sources and is not available on home media, there is almost no information or verifiable reference sources available except for a scant mention on the Turner Classic Movie and IMDb (Internet Movie Database) websites. William J. Felchner, the author of the article on Bukisa is an established professional writer and editor ([3]), whose work has appeared in a large number of current periodicals: Hot Rod, Corvette Quarterly, Movie Collector's World, True West, Persimmon Hill, Sports Collectors Digest, Lottery Player's Magazine, Western & Eastern Treasures, Golf Digest, Illinois, Remember, Hollywood Collectibles, Television History, Old West, Antiques & Auction News, Car Collector & Car Classics, Pennsylvania, Big Reel, Yesteryear, Warman's Today's Collector, Beckett Baseball Card Monthly, Tuff Stuff, The Antique Trader Weekly, Military Trader, The Paper & Advertising Collectors' Marketplace, Autograph Collector, Sports Card Trader, Goldmine, Storyboard, Frontier Times... His interest and research centers on popular culture and especially connections to esoteric films, such as Lost Flight. I happened to catch the movie on an obscure Canadian channel, "Silver Screen Classics" which is devoted to restored copies of little known feature and documentary films. As an aviation author and historian, I was amazed at the similarities of the plot to the heralded "Lost" television series as well as other disaster genre films connected to aviation settings such as The High and the Mighty (film). I am a professional writer and editor myself with close ties to the film community as a consultant and screenwriter for various productions, but have been stymied in trying to find any other sources. After two solid days of looking up sources, I have been unable to do much more than this one source, albeit an electronic article. At least one other article on Wikipedia, Now That's What I Call Steampunk! Volume 1 has used the Bukisa website to advantage by citing material from an authoritative article on Bukisa, and the editor who made the request for whitelisting was successful in whitelisting a single page from the Bukisa site. Please consider my request and get back to me ASAP. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 03:06, 10 May 2011 (UTC) Bzuk (talk) 14:01, 10 May 2011 (UTC) (corrected edit) ...Still waiting for a decision here... Bzuk (talk) 13:11, 15 May 2011 (UTC) ..anyone looking at this request? Bzuk (talk) 03:35, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The website would appear to be http://www.bukisa.com/articles/348103_ten-lost-lookalike-plane-crash-survival-television-series-and-movies - I'd do this myself, but the instruction are as clear as mud to me. Mjroots (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please be aware that we are unable to guarantee any specific timescale for resolving requests. Can you please clarify how this is a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 10:25, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The main rationale for whitelisting this page is that it was written in an authoritative style by an author who is a professional writer and an accepted expert in the field of entertainment and popular culture. William J. Felchner, the author of the article on Bukisa is not a dilientante or newcomer, having a long history of contributions since 1969, when he graduated from University and became a professional writer. He is an established professional writer and editor, whose work has appeared in a large number of current periodicals, as indicated on his personal website. All of his articles are attributed and although some of his work appears online, most of his previous work has been in traditional media. His interest and research centers on popular culture and especially connections to esoteric films, such as Lost Flight. His article is not only well written, but also cites sources and provides examples from the films being compared to the now, long-forgotten Lost Flight. There is a serious lack of corroborating reference sources for this "lost gem" of a movie and the use of the Bukisa article will help make the Wikipedia article more substantial. FWiW Bzuk (talk) 07:47, 25 May 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    In that case I can approve this in a week or so contingent on nothing negative coming to light. Stifle (talk) 18:08, 25 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The article looks fine, so I don't see why it shouldn't be whitelisted. Airplaneman ✈ 20:25, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that it looks fine too. Don't see the need to delay. If I understood the instructions I'd have already whitelisted the page myself. Mjroots (talk) 21:07, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/airlines-airport-in-national/a-forgotten-hero-from-world-war-ii

    Could you please unblock this article. I am in process about writing an article about the story, and this source provides the most complete information. Here is the link to the article I am working on in my user space Thanks.--Mbz1 (talk) 23:41, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    thebrowser.com/interviews/scott-soames-on-philosophy-language

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

    To be used on the wikipedia bio pages for Noam Chomsky, David Kaplan, Saul Kripke, and Nathan Salmon.

    It is difficult to imagine why the page is blacklisted. It consists of five carefully considered book recommendations for a literary website, TheBrowser.com, made by a reliable and very prominent contemporary philosopher--a distinguished professor at USC, a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences, and much more. This is not spam by any reasonable criterion.

    thebrowser.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    ~nsalmon (talk) 19:39, 11 May 2011 (UTC)nsalmon[reply]

    Yes, it is spam if the behavior of editors suggest a massive attempt at placing links on Wikipedia. The domains thebrowser.com, five-books.com, and fivebooks.com were blacklisted just recently due to spamming or promotion. See Special:Contributions/Anon111 and Special:Contributions/Julia.terentyeva. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:59, 11 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Amatulić: Your links provide little evidence supporting your accusation that the editors at TheBrowser.com have engaged in a "massive attempt at placing links on Wikipedia." Are the two users you cite editors at TheBrowser.com? Is there evidence there that Julia.terentyeva has engaged in a massive attempt at spamming Wikipedia? Even if the editors at TheBrowser.com are spammers, as you contend, it does not follow that every webpage they edit is spam. I repeat a straightforward observation, which I take to be beyond reasonable dispute (at least among those with expertise on the subject): By any reasonable criterion, the particular webpage under consideration for whitelisting here is not spam. Far from it. Summarily deleting all references to any webpage under the TheBrowser.com domain, even if that webpage is well-informed and informative, simply because it is under their domain (and because it is believed that someone associated with that domain spammed Wikipedia), is excessively heavy-handed. It amounts to suppression of information. ~nsalmon
    Note that the "Julia" account served only to add links to the site in question. Shortly after being warned with regard to this problem, the account ceased activity and a new account (Anon111) was created to do essentially the same thing. Note also that Julia Terentyeva has a LinkedIn account that lists her position as a "digital marketing assistant" and "marketing associate" for the site. She is described as an "office manager" on the site itself. --Ckatzchatspy 05:40, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    @Ckatz: Thank you for the info about Julia's activity and your interpretation of it. As I have said, the suspected fact that someone associated with TheBrowser.com attempted to spam Wilipedia does not justify summarily suppressing any mention of the website and/or of every webpage that comes under its banner. Amatulić's assertion is simply mistaken that any and every webpage under a domain, one editor of which is suspected of attempting to spam Wikipedia, is ipso facto itself spam. Such a criterion is indefensible and does a serious disservice to Wikipedia users/readers. Let all genuinely *spammed* links to TheBrowser.com webpages and to TheBrowser.com website itself be banished from Wikipedia. It is inappropriate, however, to condemn one user's suspected misbehavior by suppressing information and thereby depriving or underinforming Wikipedia users/readers. One express purpose of this whitelist page is to reconsider, on a case-by-case basis, particular non-spam webpages under a banned domain. If a particular Browser.com webpage is not spam, and contains noteworthy information, then that particular webpage should be whitelisted. ~nsalmon

    Hmm, NSalmon, I know that the database of linkadditions is partially down .. but much of the data is still available. From that, I do not find many additions of thebrowser.com articles by other users than the (many) additions by Julia.terentyeva (of course, if you can show me many other additions that I now miss, that is fine). But reverting those edits by Julia.terentyeva has likely removed practically all use of the site on Wikipedia. Blacklisting a site which gets spammed (using multiple accounts or rapidly changing IPs) and where other use is not evident is one of the least disruptive ways of stopping the spam. I would suggest, that when editors with a firm knowledge of our policies and guidelines come to ask for the de-listing of thebrowser.com, that those requests are likely granted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:08, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you to Dirk Beetstra for that encouraging response. (Although I wonder why it should be that summarily banning all references to a site is somehow less "dispruptive" than merely reverting all of the editors' suspected edits.) In the meantime, I would ask that Wikipedia administrators decide this request for the whitelisting of one specific webpage, no link to which was spammed on Wikipedia (as far as I know) and which is itself noteworthy and legitimate. ~nsalmon

    Not much to wonder, NSalmon. If the only 'use' of the link is by the spammers who add their links, then there is no disruption in preventing other users (eh .. there were none?) to add the link, while it stops the disruption of the additions by the spammers. Then we also do not have to revert all the suspected edits, and that is exactly the goal of the spam-blacklist ...
    You're right, a knowledgeable admin on this site should consider whether whitelisting this one document is appropriate. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:38, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you again to Dirk Beetstra. I have moved this entire discussion exchange to the correct location on the whitelist page. ~nsalmon

    Nsalmon, all of your edits in 2011 have been to argue for the inclusion of this link. However, I do not recall seeing you actually post a rationale for why the link is necessary. Could you please explain how you see the addition of this link as benefiting the articles in question? (Keep in mind that Wikipedia is not a directory service, and we do not add links simply because they exist.) --Ckatzchatspy 17:56, 16 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    @Ckatz: You have removed not only links to the document in question, but also mere mention of the document WITH NO LINK WHATSOEVER. The only justification you have offered for your heavy-handed censorship is that you believe that someone associated with the document’s domain has spammed Wikipedia. I have posed a legitimate challenge to your censorship. I believe your response is inappropriately defensive. (For example, your remark that “all of your edits in 2011 have been to argue for the inclusion of this link" is just plain wrong. Furthermore, it is plainly irrelevant.)
    As I have said, TheBrowser.com is a legitimate literary website (which as far as I know does not sell books--I have no connection to or association with TheBrowser.com). FiveBooks.com is under the Browser domain. It asks highly distinguished leaders in academic fields to rank the best five books in the field. It is noteworthy fact about an author that one of their books has been ranked among the top five by an undisputed leader in the field. Merely citing this fact is not a way to misuse Wikipedia as “a directory service”--any more than merely citing the fact that someone has won a prize (with or without a link) is a way of using Wikipedia as a service to direct readers to the agency that awards the prize. On the contrary, suppressing this information is a serious and indefensible disservice to Wikipedia readers.
    To repeat, the document under consideration for whitelisting consists of a carefully considered ranking of the best books in a specialized branch of philosophy. The source is an internationally distinguished scholar, philosopher, and linguist, Scott Soames. He is a member of American Academy of Arts and Sciences, a distinguished professor at the University of Southern California, and formerly of Princeton University and Yale University. The fact that these five books have been ranked best in the field by an undisputed expert is noteworthy. The source is reliable. Merely citing the noteworthy fact is not spam, nor is it a misuse of Wikipedia as a directory service. Quite the contrary, suppression of the fact is inappropriate. ~nsalmon
    The mention you refer to - if I'm recalling the correct edit - was a clear attempt to include a mention of the site without tripping the blacklist filter. As for your claim about contributions, where are the other ones? Your contribution history shows only edits to this page in 2011; your last edits prior to that were in 2009. (For that matter, the vast majority of your edits involve changes to the article about you, which in and of itself represents a conflict of interest.) Furthermore, please refrain from tossing about spurious, misguided, and uncivil claims of "censorship". You do your argument - and yourself - no benefit to bring such a petty and nasty tone to the discussion. --Ckatzchatspy 06:42, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    NSalmon, it has been made very clear to you why this domain was blacklisted. It was spammed. It does not even matter whether it was by someone involved with the site or not, it was plainly spammed. To stop that disruption, the site was blacklisted (one of the major spammers already made a second account, so blocking would likely not have deterred the spam in any form - and there was no other serious use at that time outside of the link on the page - therefore, other solutions were not suitable, while the disruption caused by blacklisting would be minimal (it is never completely avoidable)). Your edit mentined by Ckatz showed that you even tried to circumvent the spam blacklist, insisting in undiscussed insertion of the link. Links can be inserted by anyone if there is a proper rationale, links that are blacklisted are NOT to be inserted until one can provide a proper rationale for that insertion. You are not asked whether you think that blacklisting was appropriate, you are asked for a rationale, explaining why this specific link is a benefit to the article. It is of no use in that discussion to discuss the rest of the domain or that it is a legitimate website or whatever (that would be suitable for a de-listing request). So .. why is this page suitable? --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:00, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    After a week of discussion, I think it's time to close this. I have not participated here other than to answer an initial question about the reason for the blacklisting. I observe the following facts:

    • The site was blacklisted due to a clear pattern of spamming behavior on the part of two accounts, with a connection established between one account and a representative of thebrowser.com. That is appropriate grounds for blacklisting regardless of the opinions of parties interested in the site. Wikipedia does not exist to serve as a promotion channel for anyone.
    • The page is being requested to whitelist for use in multiple articles on Wikipedia, not just one.
    • The requested page appears to have slight relevance to the topics of those Wikipedia articles, appearing to be little more than recommendations of books written by certain authors. The fact that the interviewee Scott Soames appears to be a notable professor is interesting but not necessarily a factor in a decision to whitelist.
    • The requester NSalmon appears to have a conflict of interest, as one of the articles where the link would be used is about him, and the page suggests a personal relationship with Scott Soames. Therefore, NSalmon doesn't appear to be in a neutral position for making this request.
    • No rationale has been given for whitelisting the page.

    Conclusion: If a trusted, high-volume editor determines that this interview is worthy of a link on Wikipedia and makes a request to whitelist, we will consider the request, taking into accounts the arguments presented above. Therefore this request should be no Declined for now. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is unfortunate that Ckatz has chosen to take legitimate challenges to his/her questionable editorial decisions personally, and to go personal in response. This is not about any particular person and their judgments; this is about the availability of noteworthy information at a popular encyclopedic website. Both Ckatz and Dirk Beetstra have wrongly and unfairly accused me of attempting to circumvent the blacklisting process. Arguing a case on this whitelist page is not an attempt to circumvent the blacklist process. I have not "insisted on undiscussed insertion of a link," or anything of the sort. Replacing a link with mere *mention* of one noteworthy document that appears under a blacklisted domain is not an attempt to circumvent the blacklist process. It is certainly not an attempt to insert a challenged link. It *is* an attempt to restore suppressed noteworthy information precisely WITHOUT inserting any link that Wikipedia administrators have deemed objectionable because (they believe) someone associated with the domain in question has spammed Wikipedia. The response by Wikipedia adminsitrators indicates that some of them may be interested in suppressing not only spammed links to a blacklisted domain but also any information involving that domain. Spamming is improper; it is also improper for an administrator to suppress noteworthy information through the "blacklist"/"whitelist" process as a means of punishing spammers. ~nsalmon—Preceding unsigned comment added by Nsalmon (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 May 2011

    How does the existence of this link on Wikipedia improve Wikipedia?
    Accusations of "suppressing noteworthy information" and speculation about administrator motivations are inappropriate, as are speculations of Nsalmon's motivations (see WP:AGF). As for the claim of impropriety about using the blacklist process "as a means of punishing spammers", that is also inappropriate. Once a spammer has disrupted Wikipedia, it becomes abundantly clear that the site conflicts with Wikipedia's goals, so the site is blacklisted. This does no harm. An encyclopedia can function perfectly well without any external links. The ability to link externally is a convenience and a privilege, and in almost all cases the value of content on Wikipedia is not diminished by the omission of any link. Subsequent attempts at giving the spammed site any exposure whatsoever are viewed with suspicion, particularly if those attempts originate from someone with a conflict of interest. Therefore, this request was no Declined.
    Fortunately, thebrowser.com doesn't appear to be one of those pernicious pay-per-click sites like examiner.com. I or any administrator here would be happy to reconsider whitelisting this link if a trusted, high-volume editor could provide a reasonable rationale for whitelisting it. Heck, I'll reconsider even if Nsalmon refrains from further complaints and instead presents a good case on the benefit of having this link and the harm done by omitting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:39, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist is not the Wikipedia complaints department, nor is it intended to help users with their grieving process. Wikipedia requires a collegial atmosphere to function effectively and continued tendentious arguments along with confrontational personal attacks, makes it quite clear that further discussion on this matter is no longer needed or productive. As evidenced above, from multiple impartial administrators, there has been significant disruption, abuse and inappropriate behavior along with breaches of wikipedia policy. no Declined and closed--Hu12 (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    www.bizjournals.com/portland/stories/2005/03/07/daily3.html

    Hi everybody. CollegeNET has been flagged with a Notability tag. A very helpful editor came along and said I should locate some local press. I found this article, but it looks like Wikipedia doesn't like the BizJournals.com domain. The article itself isn't particularly notable in and of itself, but I'd like to see if this can be whitelisted.
    bizjournals.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com
    Bancroft595 (talk) 17:44, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just a note: You'll need more than just "some local press" to establish notability. The notability guideline for companies, WP:CORP, says that attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Good point. Thanks Amatulic. The article already includes a number of reliable and national publications. I'm seeking to get this particular article whitelisted only because it's local and it's specifically about CollegeNET, which should help demonstrate verifiable notability.Bancroft595 (talk) 19:39, 18 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am minded to approve this request and will do so soon unless I see a reason not to. However, this will not be a bar to the article being deleted for notability. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 24 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/cw-network-in-national/america-s-next-top-model-new-all-star-cast-revealed

    This page has the list of competitors for the next cycle of America's Next Top Model, and, until another better source becomes available, should be made useable for the Wikipedia article about the show. Here is the link to the page: www.examiner.com/cw-network-in-national/america-s-next-top-model-new-all-star-cast-revealed . I hope I have formatted this request properly. examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    OLEF641 (talk) 00:00, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I'll point out here that WP:CRYSTAL discourages including content that speculates about the future, particularly when the only source found is something like examiner.com. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:03, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.voobly.com

    As a member of the staff on voobly.com I can tell you we should not be blacklisted for spam. Other gaming websites similar to ours are allowed to have a wikipedia page to outline the history of website and so should we. Voobly.com is a gaming website that took over a lot of the games from the msn gaming zone when it shut down. We have been around for several years. We have anywhere from 1000 - 3000 players online and playing at any given time. We cannot even post where the game is playable because we are blocked. An example of this is on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Ants you will see the last line states "On January 31, 2006, Microsoft's Zone retired Ants because of the lack of players." so any user viewing that page would think the game is done. When in fact it is supported on another website www.voobly.com.

    An example of another website like ours on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRanger Game Ranger has its page posted on several articles of games it supports.

    Thanks you for your time.

    Some wiki pages that would benefit from this white-list addition: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voobly http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_Ants http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Age_of_Kings http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Empires_II:_The_Conquerors http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Midtown_Madness_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six:_Rogue_Spear http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Clancy%27s_Rainbow_Six And countless others - +dAwGy —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.180.227.182 (talk) 18:24, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I get a strong sense of deja vu from this request: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2010/09#Voobly.com. Rejected. MER-C 05:30, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    So if that's the case please blacklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GameRanger as it "does not bring any benefit to Wikipedia". Not fair to allow one gaming website to have a wikipedia page and not another.

    www.typemock.com

    Typemock should be added to the List of mock object frameworks and List of unit testing frameworks as they are popular frameworks for .NET and C++ developers. It's been featured in the software development press (see, for example, http://www.sdtimes.com/TYPEMOCK_LAUNCHES_ISOLATOR___THE_FIRST_C__EASY_UNIT_TESTING_SOLUTION_FOR_GAME_DEVELOPERS/By_SD_TIMES_NEWSWIRE/34995) Saalam123 (talk) 06:50, 23 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.shamsundersharma.co.cc

    This is for a free lancer economist and i feel it should be be added to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hoshiarpur as it should benefit to meet the economist for betterment of the nation. Regards.

    Vivek— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vsharman (talk • contribs)

    www.musiklife.co.cc/2011/03/jurang-pemisah-antara-prestasi-dan.html

    I am writing an article on the album Jurang Pemisah (currently located in my userspace) and found what seems to be a decent source on www.musiklife.co.cc. It was a surprise when I triggered the spam filter. Anyways, the article on musiklife indicates some of the inspirations to the album's songwriter which I have been unable to find anywhere else. It would be nice if just that page were allowed so that the sentence could be properly cited. Crisco 1492 (talk) 14:17, 28 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    .co.cc is very often a redirect to a proper site - often enough to globally blacklist the whole tld and let whitelisting do the rest.
    I'll add musiklife.co.cc - this site does not seem to be a redirect (though there is a lot of blogger.com code in the source, bit confusing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:19, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    examiner.com Boney James: CONTACT

    For When I Had The Chance, I would like this specific page to be unblocked for citation purposes, because it adds considerable background about the concept of the album that this song is a part of, and this content is not user created or invented, it is a interview with the musician which is the one who collaborates with the subject of the article, I've read why you don't normally allow examiner.com links, but like I said before, it is a interview with the own artist by a relevant interviewer - Samuel Archer. Please lemme know about this situation as soon as anyone can, because I'm making a major restructuring in this article, and this part of the interview is very relevant to the context of the section that I'm currently editing. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 17:21, 8 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    It is not a half of an interview, yes I've read Common requests, but this interview is not found anywhere else in the internet, and is relevant to the scope of the article I'm revamping. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 15:18, 9 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And I found this interview very useful to the readers, to give a inside out of the music album development background. Eduemoni↑talk↓ 02:50, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    dom3.servegame.com/wiki/Main_Page

    Wiki page for the game dominions 3. Old strategy wiki is outdated. And not currently being updated (I removed the link). But wikipedia still points to the incorrect page. The link is for use on the dominion 3 page. The game has a very high learning curve, and the strategy wiki wiki page gives incorrect information. Soyweiser (talk) 19:02, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    At first look this appears to violate WP:ELNO#1, but I may be convinced otherwise... Stifle (talk) 15:23, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ELNO#1? Which rule is that? The one that it adds no useful information? The dom3.servegame wiki contains the most updated information for players of the game dominions 3. So if links to those kinds of wikis are not allowed, the strategywiki link should also be removed. (as the strategy wiki contains even less information, and isn't updated anymore). Personally I would like a link to the dom3.servegame wiki, and not to the strategy wiki. (As some players get confused and use outdated information). Here is an example of a new player getting confused with the wrong wiki: http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/showpost.php?p=773552&postcount=11
    And there are more game pages that have links to the strategy wikis. I don't know if it is allowed or not. (As I tend not to keep up with all the different rules and regulations of wikipedia). So feel free to remove the link to the servegame wiki, and to deny this request. But please also remove the link to the strategy wiki then. (and inform the user prod, that the link should not be added back. I removed it before and he added it back in. I didn't want to start a reversal war about it. As that would waste everybody time.
    In the interest of full disclosure I am also a active member of the dom3.servegame wiki and the dom3 community. And Prod is one of the editors of the strategy wiki site. (The general one, not the dom3 one, as nobody has really edited the dom3 strategy wiki since 2008). And thanks for the reply. I hope we can find some sort of solution for the problem. Soyweiser (talk) 15:46, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I will approve this if nobody objects in the next week or so. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Soyweiser (talk) 21:32, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.holocaustresearchproject.net/essays&editorials/larouche2.html#_ednref9

    This link contains an article by the academic Matthew Feldman about Lyndon LaRouche. It is an important source because it contains the notes from one of LaRouche's conferences, and also comments on LaRouche's public statements. It would be useful for the page Views of Lyndon LaRouche.

    Matthew Feldman is a senior lecturer in 20th century history at the University of Northampton.[4] He's also co-editor of the academic journal Totalitarian Movements and Political Religions. I have no idea why the site was listed, but Feldman is clearly notable. BillMasen (talk) 12:28, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted per recommendation [5] BillMasen (talk) 15:57, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am inclined to approve this request but will leave open for another week or so in case there are any objections. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved Stifle (talk) 11:40, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    view360.com

    I would like to link this page www.view360.in/virtualtour/ooty/rosegarden as an external link to the article Government Rose Garden, Ooty. I find it would be very useful to readers as the page provides a full 360 degree panoramic view of the garden. The link also provides the 360 degree panoramic view from seven different locations within the garden. I feel it would be an ideal external link to the page.

    Thanks

    Suraj (talk) 05:20, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    view360.in

    I would like to link to www.view360.in/virtualtour/thanjavur/ under section "External Links" to the article Brahadeeswarar temple. This does give a good perspective tour. I do run lots of script filters/blockers on my browser, so I do not know why this is blocked at present. The content is most relevant to the article on the UNESCO world heritage site.

    Thank you. -- Beta - Talk 05:30, 26 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Another examiner.com article

    Request for white-listing of URL examiner.com/youth-travel-in-national/youth-vote-overseas-interview-with-clair-whitmer-part-1 for use as a reference at Overseas Vote Foundation#Voter services and site usage. This Examiner.com article contains an interview with the Program Director of Youth Vote Overseas, an appropriate RS for the material used. I am not the author of the article. Arbeh (talk) 08:41, 25 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Can or can't do? Arbeh (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.indiaedu.com/residential-schools/sainik-school-satara.html

    I was in the middle of removing a copyright infringement on a Wikipedia article, until I fell onto this page. I have confirmed that most of the text on the Sainik School Satara was a copyright infringement of the source given in the section heading. Minimac (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/aviation-community-in-anchorage/stevens-flight-an-irony-of-errors

    Page is Taquan Air.

    This webpage identifies that Senator Stevens (R, Alaska) was both a "decorated World War II pilot", and had more recently become "floatplane qualified". Taquan Air operates only floatplanes, and received awards twice from Stevens (see article).

    A search for "Stapleton" shows no previous references for whitelisting, nor do I have other references to show that Stevens was floatplane qualified.

    www.examiner.com/aviation-community-in-anchorage/rob-stapleton shows that Stapleton's status with examiner.com is established, and I have used the words "designated blogger" in the citation to clarify the relationship between the publisher and the author. What makes this article reliable is the author, Rob Stapleton--examiner.com need only reliably reproduce what Stapleton has written.

    Stapleton has been writing on Alaska aviation for at least ten years, for example,

    • Rob Stapleton (July 21, 2000). "New owner hopes to return Taquan Air to its glory days" (PDF). Taquan Air reprint of Alaska Flyer. p. 38. Retrieved February 25, 2011.

    Here is the proposed cite for the entry:

    cite web
    | url = www.examiner.com/aviation-community-in-anchorage/stevens-flight-an-irony-of-errors
    | title = Stevens flight an irony of errors?
    | author = Rob Stapleton, Anchorage Aviation Community Examiner (designated blogger)
    | authorlink = www.examiner.com/aviation-community-in-anchorage/rob-stapleton
    | date = August 15, 2010
    | publisher = Clarity Digital Group LLC d/b/a Examiner.com.
    | accessdate = 02 March 2011
    | quote = Stevens was a decorated C-46, C-47 pilot during the WWII, who recently got his float rating... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Unscintillating (talk • contribs) 16:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Hate their popups, no need for the authorlink inclusion (its in the article). http://www.examiner.com/aviation-community-in-anchorage/stevens-flight-an-irony-of-errors Done. thanks --Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/aviation-community-in-anchorage/report-cites-oversight-and-pilot-error-for-alaska-c-17-crash

    Funny that somebody has just requested to whitelist another article from the very same author and website (see right above), and I'm glad to see that it has been approved.

    The article in question, again by Rob Stapleton, would constitute a relevant source for 2010 Alaska C-17 crash and seems to me meaningful enough and decently written. In fact, his views are echoed by other aviation commentators, e.g. 1, 2. -- Giuliopp (talk) 02:59, 5 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment  For what little that it is worth, I have read this article and agree that as a Rob Stapleton article it appears to be reliable.  I wonder though if the delay in approval is because the information may be available without whitelisting.  Unscintillating (talk) 03:46, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    This is a very grey-area of reliability. Support it with additionl references. nevertheless lets make this the last from both this site and author. thanks,  Done--Hu12 (talk) 18:24, 9 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com Mudrian interview

    This Examiner.com article from 2009 features an in depth interview with editor-in-chief for Decibel magazine Albert Mudrian that would significantly benefit the articles Decibel (magazine) and Precious Metal (book). I cannot find any third-party articles that go into this much detail about these subjects, so there are no alternatives. Also, I have read MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests and I can assure you I have no connection with Examiner or the author. I am not really sure how to demonstrate this though. Is it sufficient to say that I've been a Wikipedia editor for 3+ years and this is my first request to use this website? Fezmar9 (talk) 22:57, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com Shu Takumi interview

    Comes from a reliable editor, who has collaborated with TV Japan, Apple Inc., MTV, Konami, Sega, Capcom, Atlus, Lonely Planet, Associated Press, BBC America, NHK, and Getty Images. To be used in Characters in Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective, and the potential to be used in Ghost Trick: Phantom Detective. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:13, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Denied requests

    ehow.com/how_2259466_star-trek-crosscountry-road-trip.html

    I am requesting that eHow be whitelisted for when I tried to add a citation of this address on the Monterey Bay Aquarium article, I got the message that it was blocked. If eHow is whitelisted, then this will be a big help to my attempt to promote the aforementioned article to good article status, as it should meet criteria for references. However, I do agree that it's written by anyone. Bulldog73 (talk) 04:07, 2 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • What makes this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 16:19, 22 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was the only source I could find. However, although you are an admin, you can consider finding another reliable source that is not already blocked. I now agree that eHow is not going to be unblocked any sooner, and that it is not a reliable source. Bulldog edit my talk page da contribs 03:43, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Being an admin doesn't give me any more ways to find reliable sources than anyone else. no Declined with some regret, for failing WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    gopetition.com

    GoPetition is used by thousands of reputable organisations including many non-profits, that continually request we register our background information with Wikipedia. I support the fact Wikipedia prevents petition links, apart from one or two exceptions i don't believe they have a place in Wikipedia either. I also believe many petition/cause sites are very dodgy, but we are not and consequently i would like to write a Wikipedia article providing background information on our story as requested by our users (and already allowed for other major cause sites, even the dodgy ones who sell users information to political parties). The below links are for our home page, some information about our many documented successes and the about us page, which provides background on who we are and what we do. Specific links i'm requesting to be whitelisted as per above:

    1. www.gopetition.com
    2. www.gopetition.com/success-stories.html
    3. www.gopetition.com/aboutus.php
    • Wikipedia allows all major 'cause' related sites to do this currently. If rules are rules, then no problem, but i would ask you to blacklist all cause related sites that have done exactly what you are preventing. I also don't believe COI rules apply as long as the source is declared. Plus plenty of people will contribute to the article as the site as been instrumental in monumental change for millions of people. It was also blacklisted completely without basis, consequently i believe whitelisting of a background page is a very minor concession. User:mish15 —Preceding undated comment added 00:24, 13 April 2011 (UTC).[reply]
      • Does GoPetition have a Wikipedia article? Stifle (talk) 11:29, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, mish15, gopetition.com links fail both WP:NOTADVOCATE and Wikipedia:EL#Links_normally_to_be_avoided-#4. I agree with Stifle and don't think this link meets inclusion guidelines .--Hu12 (talk) 17:26, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the request was for a Wikipedia article about GoPetition, but it doesn't exist. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.youtu.be/9ZebtkQSXEs

    1. This specific link should be whitelisted because it adds important bibliographic information to the page. This bibliographic information pertains to the Nancy Mercado page.
    2. Specific link: www.youtu.be/9ZebtkQSXEs
    3. Solomonmercado (talk)
    • That's a URL shortener. Please use the full URL, which will be permitted (as long as it's added by a non-new user).  Denied Stifle (talk) 20:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    pantheon.org

    The award-winning Encyclopedia Mythica appears to be blacklisted. I would assume that someone abused links to the site, but am reasonably certain the site itself is not the problem. It is a highly useful resource for mythology research, and its prohibition is a detriment to Wikipedia. A great many mythology-related articles could use this site for reference. In my case, I've created the page for Cychreides, the mythical dragon of Salamis and Demeter, only to find that my best source is blacklisted. While the Mythica article is short, it even includes references to the original Greek sources, for example Bibliotheke: www.pantheon.org/articles/c/cychreides.html --Kaz (talk) 21:50, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Denied per [6], totally unreliable source. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Mario Brunello Antiruggine

    www.brunelloantiruggine.blogspot.com

    I would like to ad this link to the page about Mario Brunello, it helps to highlight and to understand the orinality of the musician's view through what is on in his cultural centre.

    The link is informative, poses no risk and doesn't break any rules; Rcamillini (talk) 20:00, 29 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blogs are not normally considered reliable sources, therefore this request is liable to be denied within one week unless clear reasons and evidence of reliability are provided. Stifle (talk) 10:03, 31 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Blog we are talking of is the very blog of the noteworthy person the article is about (Mario Brunello) - In the blog is expressed in brief Brunello's view and artistic proposals, it helps define this artist image, so let it be whitelisted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rcamillini (talk • contribs) 21:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined, WP:ELNO item 1. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 4 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Note, this is 'accidentally' blacklisted by a global rule '(debt|financ|loan|morgage).*\.blogspot\.com' (hence the bold part in 'www.brunelloantiruggine.blogspot.com' is what is blocked ..). Based on that, this does not need to be blocked and could be whitelisted. However, it is still a blogspot, and the page does have a good number of external links 'defining' the author (cleanup of the article per WP:MOS would be good). Maybe this should be revisited. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 7 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, Invalid, Malformed or Otherwise Past Relevance

    Cincinnati Rollergirls Shoot It Gets Better Video

    I would like this specific page to be unblocked for citation purposes for It Gets Better Project as it adds considerable background to the video, and furthermore because this is the first time to my knowledge that a roller derby league has made such an advocacy video pertaining to LGBT issues. kencf0618 (talk) 23:33, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/music-in-national/hollywood-undead-announce-revolt-tour-2011-with-10-years-and-drive-a

    The article is the only third party news source confirming the existence of the 2011 Revolt Tour. The facts are verifiable at Hollywood Undead's Facebook, but Facebook cannot be used as a proper reference. The use is for the American Tragedy (album) to put in the promotional section for the album. GroundZ3R0 002 08:23, 27 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.squidoo.com/cheap-plastic-dinosaurs-a-parent-s-review

    This article talks about the usage of plastic dinosaurs as toys for toddlers, and is useful for the animal figurines article. It doesn't seem to be malicious in any way. InverseHypercube (talk) 02:48, 8 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com AVGN

    I am trying to add this text to the Discussion page at Angry Video Game Nerd:

    Not sure if this merits a mention in the article, not just because it would be out of context no matter where it got incorporated but also because it's more about Rolfe than about the AVGN persona. Just the same, though, the Examiner reports that Rolfe has been pensive lately due to the crisis in Japan: "RIP: Satoshi Tajiri? Not Dead from Earthquake" (15 March 2011). Incidentally, clicking on the link at the bottom of the article takes you to a post by "James" at cinemassacre.com encouraging fans to donate toward the relief efforts: Thinking of Japan (14 March 2011).
    1. The page should be whitelisted because it isn't spam.
    2. That article standing to benefit from the addition of the link is AVGN.
    3. Specific link: www.examiner.com/video-game-culture-in-new-york/rip-satoshi-tajiri-not-dead-from-earthquake

    examiner.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    —Biosketch (talk) 01:05, 16 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I hadn't. Thanks for replying and referring me there. As I understand from the text, I need to demonstrate two things in order for the examiner page to be whitelisted, in addition to the standard procedure followed for most ordinary cases: reliability and no personal connection. About the reliability aspect, I frankly have no idea – but an explanation may still may be in order: Angry Video Game Nerd was nominated for deletion a short time ago because of a lack of independent third-party sources establishing the notability of the semi-fictional persona described in the article, and interested contributors were endeavoring to locate third-party sources to help establish this notability. I was able to find two such sources – one through Google News and another through Google Books. Recently the Examiner.com story also appeared in Google News, whereupon I put together the text that's in my original post here, hoping it would further establish AVGN's notability. The result of the AfD for AVGN was keep, so it's not like the Examiner.com page is crucial or anything, and anyway what I wrote was only going to appear in the Discussion page. So I won't be particularly disappointed if the request I'm making is denied. Basically, no: I can't vouch for the reliability of the Examiner page, but at the same time all I was asking was to be able to mention it on the Discussion page and let other editors determine whether or not it merits inclusion in the article itself.
    And as for a personal connection of mine with the Examiner, I'm not sure how I could prove that I'm not connected, as I don't know who's behind the website or anything. At any rate, to the best of my knowledge I have no connection at all to the site or anyone who works for it or contributes to it, and I stand to gain or lose nothing by whatever the decision is on the matter.—Biosketch (talk) 16:29, 18 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I suppose we could approve this, but I'll wait a week or so in case there are any further comments. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Looking at the examiner.com link, it appears to be an editorial, a personal essay by a 19-year-old computer science major. The only mention of Angry Video Game Nerd is a single sentence referring the reader to a post by the game's creator. It's a trivial mention by a non-notable source. I'm just not seeing the value in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:48, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 11:34, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.starmometer.com/2011/03/21/xyriel-manabat-to-star-with-coney-reyes-in-100-days/

    Trying to add a reference to a new TV show in the Philippines Talk:100_Days_(TV_Series)

    www.starmometer.com/2011/03/21/xyriel-manabat-to-star-with-coney-reyes-in-100-days/

    The site is a fresh news provider for Philippine TV shows and movies, the news is just today but the TV previews have already been shown, 1st found reliable article

    starmometer.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com

    2007456 slu (talk) 07:21, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Hindawi-Affair at hubpages

    The page hubpages.com/hub/Hindawi-Affair provides a source for the citation provided at the opening section of Hindawi affair. The source is reliable and I don't know why the website is blacklisted in the English Wikipedia. As long as it is blacklisted, kindly whitelist at least this specific page and add it as a source at Hindawi affair. Thanks, ליאור • Lior (talk) 22:06, 14 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • This is on our list of /Common requests, with specific instructions for requesting its addition. Please can you read this. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    thebestofreigate

    I wish to use part of this webpage to back up the signficance of the Aqua Sports Company in a page I am trying to draft before I release it onto Wikipedia. I feel that it is suitable to show what local people think of Aqua Sports and would request that I be able to site the url: www.thebestof.co.uk/local/reigate/business-guide/feature/the-aqua-sports-company/1276.

    Thanks Oddbodz (talk) 18:01, 21 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • This does not appear to be a reliable source, although I could be persuaded otherwise. Previously blacklisted for spamming. Stifle (talk) 14:10, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ibanez.co.jp

    suite101.com

    • Trying to improve the referencing in the article. The specific section got tagged by a {Unreferenced section} during copy edit. The webpage in question gives a pretty decent overview of Narnia's geography, which is why I'd like to add it as a reference
    • I'm trying to add it here: The Chronicles of Narnia#Geography
    • The specific link I'd like to add is: www.suite101.com/content/the-geography-of-the-chronicles-of-narnia-a138576

    -- Jake fuersturm (talk) 08:17, 30 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/city-hall-in-san-francisco/the-other-presidential-election

    This link contains some specific info about San Francisco Mayor not found elsewhere. It is used in Mayor of San Francisco.—Chris!c/t 04:45, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    One page on mappery.com

    For National Register of Historic Places listings in Seattle, Washington I would like to add a note that M.V. Vashon was wrecked in Prince of Wales Island, Alaska in 1986. mappery.com/Prince-of-Wales-Island-Map has a picture of the wreckage, which I'd like to use as a citation; not sure why it's blacklisted. Little is online about this, and this (since it has a photo) seems as good a citation as I can find. - Jmabel | Talk 06:01, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Maybe I'm missing it. I don't see a picture of a wreckage on that page, nor do I see any indication of where the wreckage occurred. Kindly point it out? ~Amatulić (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 11:39, 13 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • Sorry I didn't reply more quickly, but there was nearly a 2-week delay before you responded to me and actually I'm getting back to you faster than that. It looks like the page brings up a different set of pictures each time, which makes that particular URL useless as a reference. I guess the real source is http://www.panoramio.com/photo/2876189. Not sure whether that would be considered citable, but it led me to the perfect citable http://www.incidentnews.gov/incident/6365. So problem solved. - Jmabel | Talk 05:39, 15 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com article - NEW request

    I see I am the second user to request an examiner.com whitelist. I request the domain be cleared at MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed_removals but figured I would request a page-specific whitelist here too.

    I tried to link examiner.com/science-news-in-buffalo/radiation-everywhere (a worthwhile article about radiation) to the Fukushima I nuclear accidents article and was blocked. The article appears to be original work (e.g. it isn't a wire report, and the info cannot be sourced to any other website). 66.65.191.165 (talk) 01:37, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

      •  Not done due to past relevance. Original requester moved to *not done* because new sources are available and no action was taken on my request yet. 66.65.191.165 (talk) 03:49, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    lyrikline.org

    Delisted at meta, removal, log. Multiple whitelistings, no longer needed. (not reblock) --Abd (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    lenr-canr.org

    Delisted at meta, removal, log. Multiple whitelistings, no longer needed. (not reblock) --Abd (talk) 22:57, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • And since your first action thereafter was to link to a copyright violation from that site, I will now have to go and blacklist it again. Well done. Guy (Help!) 14:51, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Never mind on the removal request, for the moment, JzG just unilaterally, without prior discussion, blacklisted the site, and this might impact whitelisted pages. --Abd (talk) 17:35, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I have not added links to lenr-canr.org since the delisting at meta. JzG has misidentified my listing of a series of already-whitelisted links, on an article talk page, for possible use as convenience copies, and all those pages had been approved by an admin as showing no reason to not use them, no apparent copyvio. The issue was considered, the copyvio argument rejected. --Abd (talk) 17:39, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    We do not have the concept of "convenience" as a counter to WP:C and we do not have a concept of "permission" from admins to link copyright violations. I believe all this has been explained to you before. Guy (Help!) 20:00, 29 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

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

    'This is supposed to be about SPAM'

    I don't understand what's going on here. This is supposed to be about SPAM. It's explicitly called Spam-whitelist. But practically all request are denied because they do not fit within WP:RS. This is not the purpose of this page! And besides, WP:RS cannot be enforced by regexps on urls - this is far too complicated. The process by which certain blogging sites are blocked simply discriminates against bloggers with less money, where bloggers who can afford their own domain name can have links to their blogs added with (effectively) no control.

    What should happen here that practically all requests should be approved (none of them were spam as far as I could see), while in practice practically all of them are denied, or a discussion issues. These kind of discussions (acceptable vs. unacceptable sources) belong in the relevant pages' talk pages, not here! In short, guys, you should really change your attitude. Uffish (talk) 00:01, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Just found that on WP:EL: the 4th type of link to be considered: "Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." Uffish (talk) 00:07, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The name of the page is a misnomer. I have sought for a long time to move it to something like "blocked external links" — the purpose of the page is not exclusively to control spam, although it was when it was developed.
    As one of the main admins keeping things rolling here I can say that I've increased my approval rate substantially lately. The main reason for requests being denied is that the requestor does not reply when the request is challenged, leading to a "not done due to lack of reply". The most requested site is examiner.com, which is a site that publishes almost anything and offers authors payment to increase page views. The potential for misuse if it were not blacklisted or if requests for it were approved on sight is immense.
    In short, URL blacklisting is never going to be 100% effective; there will always be false positives and false negatives and they are a cost for which the benefit is reducing spam and the like. Stifle (talk) 12:16, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Adding to this:
    • You say 'none of them were spam as far as I could see'. Spam is not on what is displayed on the page, it is how it has been added to Wikipedia. Examiner.com, e.g. has been spammer by site owners, and by examiner.com-editors, who were here only to drive traffic to their own research in order to make money. Uffish, having people on your site results in money, and hence, Wikipedia is a huge target for spamming - and that is not only by sex/viagra/diploma-mill/drugs-sites, we even have huge international organisations spamming (for more info, see Search engine optimization). You would be surprised how far editors (spammers) go to get their domains here. It pays having your links in as many places on the web as possible.
    Spam was not mentioned as the reason for denial in any of the cases above. And the guys asking the exception were, as far as I could see, not the site owners (or at least not clearly so and it was not claimed). Uffish (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Do we have to mention it every time we deny a link - the link is on a spam-blacklist, why do you think it was added? Please assume good faith, Uffish. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:33, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    And adding to it - examiner.com is not only spammed by site owners, also by writers. Again, if new editors come here, we are more reluctant than when established editors come here. And we get even less reluctant if the established editor comes with a good reason. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • If a blog with an own domainname spam is spammed, that may also very well end up on the blacklist. Note that there are quite some blogspot.com links on this blacklist.
    • Yes, the issues belong on the talkpages. The fastest way of getting a link whitelisted is probably to discuss it there where it matters, and if there is consensus on use, come here and point to the consensus. When leaving out the 'http' you can point to the link, it is only not clickable.
    • 'Sites that fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.' .. the point there is 'still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources' - though there are blogs which pass that criterion, you'd be surprised a) how few that are, and b) how many that don't get added.
    I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:03, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Let me rephrase my objections. Decisions whether a source is reliable or not are content decisions and are taken by CONSENSUS. If you would stumble on a discussion in the talk page of Barak Obama whether some source is reliable or not, you would not dream of saying "I'm an administrator and I say it's not reliable and that's it, the page is blocked". But this is effectively what is happening here. People here are using their administrator power to make content decisions. This is completely against wikipedia spirit. Administrator decisions (blocking, protecting etc.) are only taken IF usual consensus procedures fail and AFTER they have been given a reasonable chance to succeed. But here the administrator says "this is not a reliable source" and us poor editors simply have to obey, because he is the administrator. Uffish (talk) 19:20, 10 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes, but you miss the point. Links get blacklisted because they get spammed, abused, etc. When such a link is not a reliable source then the decision is just going to be faster (or phrased differently, we would be very reluctant to blacklist a heavily spammed but very reliable source - even though we do encounter such sites being spammed ..). Sites like examiner.com are a HUGE spam risk, and this type of sites get heavily abused, while the general use to Wikipedia is minimal.

    Here, we are talking about whitelisting specific links. As an example, there has been a whitelisting request of a specific examiner.com link, where the editor, when asked, said 'well, the only reason I want it whitelisted is because I want to drive traffic to my document and earn the money'. Honest, sure, but exactly the point why we do not whitelist without good reason.

    If established editors come here, and ask 'hey, this examiner.com document is a good source for this, and I think it is suitable', then we generally hardly object and whitelist quick (well, more manpower would be nice, but that has always been a problem). If an unestablished editor comes here with 'I need this document on examiner.com', then we ask 'why do you need it, why do you think that this is useful'. Note, a lot of examiner.com documents get declined as there are good alternatives.

    We also do not say 'I say that the document is not reliable and that is it', we ask 'why do you think this document is reliable' (as, really, most of it is not) - that is a huge difference. There have been many discussions stating that document on examiner.com are (generally) not reliable.

    And no, this is not a content decision. You can write the content, you can discuss the content, you can discuss the content of the document you'd like to link to, you just can't add a working link to it. And if you come here linking to such a discussion with consensus that this is a good source, and then we say 'sorry, not reliable, not done' (and nothing more), then you would be right, that would be a content decision (and I still argue that one can write content and reference it without live links anyway). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Adding: We ask the editors to consider (and that already before requesting it) - there is no problem for anyone who requests whitelisting here to add to their request 'I think this specific document is a reliable source because ...', it makes live on all sides so much easier, and whitelisting faster. Uffish, most of the very few editors here that handle requests have been around here for some time - as I said earlier, you'd be surprised through what loopholes spammers go to get documents linked, it is how they make money - for examiner.com e.g. we have in the beginning done searches and found proper alternatives, and for much of examiner.com here goes, that if there are no proper alternatives, that the document on examiner.com is likely crap and not reliable. We can't do that for all. Similar goes for the e.g. the .co.cc domain. There have been many whitelist requests for actual redirects, a simple search on internet gives you the original, proper place to link to. We do NOT link to redirect sites, there is no need, and the risk is too big. Now read SEO forums. A common trick to get your links here: become a normal member, do normal edits, get a bit trusted, and then slowly start adding your spamlinks. Very likely that one does not get noticed. I think that asking editors to substantiate their whitelisting request is a little price, which loses hardly anything, for us being pawns in a spam game, where we at a certain point whitelist links to enable editors to spam Wikipedia or to use Wikipedia to earn money. And it is not like that we will deny whitelisting when one reasons why a link is a good source or useful for a page, but 'I need it' is just not enough (and 'I need it' is true both for the established editor ánd for the established spammer ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:45, 11 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    wording of instructions on the page

    The instructions contain the paragraph:

    "You will not be notified when your request has been responded to, even if you ask. You should 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 about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in your request being summarily denied."

    I think this is not in keeping with the spirit of Wikipedia, but rather an expression of the frequent practice ofWP:BITE. Most people come here in good faith. with a request, and since the time at which they will be answered is not predicable--some discussions are very quick and some are not, anyone who comes in good faith deserve to be notified, and the person to do it is the person making the decision. DGG ( talk ) 21:39, 22 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please feel free to action some requests yourself and notify people when they have been done. Unfortunately as the technical aspects of whitelisting are quite involved, many requests are in fact made in bad faith, and only a few sysops actually do anything here, myself being the most active one by some margin, there is limited capacity for this. I don't mean to be BITEish, but we do have users who come along, register, try to spam a link to their website, get it refused, come here and ask for delisting, then forget about it. We cannot have requests remain open indefinitely.
      I would be happy to say that no request will be denied for lack of reply unless a response has been outstanding for over a week. How does that sound? Stifle (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, it convinces me that I ought to look here occasionally myself. I sometimes tend to feel that I need to have an extra set of hands and eyes, and I share your frustration about the many Wikipedia processes that get insufficient attention. I feel about responding to requests here as I do about speedies--a request in good faith is worth an answer, a request in bad faith is worth some strong advice., or warning ,or action. DGG ( talk ) 15:01, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree that the wording is too biting, and should be softened. However, editors of whom an article they created is discussed on AfD are also not generally notified of the outcome (but only notified of the start of it), etc.
    What would be good, is if there are additional questions, that then the requester(s) are notified that there are questions (e.g., creating a {{whitelist-request-response}} or something), for the rest, I would say that we can reasonably assume that if an editor makes a request for whitelisting, that that editor does have an interest in the result.
    Regarding not enough eyes to handle this .. that is a general problem on certain parts of Wikipedia (and this is a rather specialised part of it, and it is not a generally popular part). More eyes are certainly wanted, even if they just review and give opinions (for which you do not need to be an admin!) - it makes work for the ones that do the real work easier and would speed up much of the process (Stifle is often marking requests with something like 'seems fine, will do this in a couple of days if no objections come' - a second opinion could there make such decisions faster. --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:35, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Moving

    It is proposed to relocate this process and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to Wikipedia:Blocked external links in order to reduce the "spam" connotations. Please comment at Wikipedia talk:Blocked external links. Stifle (talk) 11:50, 25 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Support: Makes sense and clears up a lot of confusion about the name. Crisco 1492 (talk) 23:50, 29 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment: This sort of move/rename has been discussed before (here and on Meta) - with consensus leaning well in favor of a rename. The problem is that this is a system page in the MediaWiki namespace. To the best of my knowledge, it isn't possible to move the page out of the MediaWiki namespace and retain the blacklist/whitelist functionality. It is possible to rename it within the MediaWiki namespace, but that requires changes in the software configuration by admins/developers. --Versageek 00:14, 30 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, okay. It would have to be MediaWiki talk:Blocked external links then. Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:23, 30 May 2011 (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]

    Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

    If your whitelist request falls under one of these two categories, the admins will be more willing to have the source whitelisted if you can acheive consensus at one of the above noticeboards. Thanks! A Quest For Knowledge (talk)

    Examiner.com

    I had cited to it for a quote that I used here in the Dave Ross article. Can this be put back in? Thanks for any help! -- Ssilvers (talk) 16:55, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    Indicator then archived. requesters: The page titled Teal Scott is in need of external, 3rd party sources. There are two articles about her which are relevant to the Wiki page on E-zines which is on the black list. I ask that two links be Allowed on to Wikipedia for this purpose...

    The-Indigo-to-Lead-Them-All&id=6173535

    and

    An-Amazing-Story-of-Forgiveness&id=6114669 Which are Both from e-zine articles. I could not include the actual links because this page black listed E-zines as well.

    E-zine article has a submission and approval process, which means that it meets the third party publication requirements. Readers would benefit from this information as would the page it's self for notability. I ask Wikipedia to strongly consider these two links Thank You. walkingthewitchWalkingthewitch (talk) 18:37, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=431617608"