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 08:18, 16 August 2011 (→‎www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/twin-galaxies-and-the-golden-domes: added). 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|445118221#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.aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00042042.html

    There is a quote from the particular article that I think would be good for the Wikipedia article Dougie (dance). LittleT889 (talk) 23:05, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.infibeam.com

    Infibeam.com should be unblocked because it is a major Indian ecommerce portal, which was blocked few years back on account of spamming. It was a mistake by some former employees and the company would be more responsible in linking its URL only to places which are relevant and would serve the purpose for which Wikipedia works. This is a request not to block the usage of the URL because of mistakes done 2-3 years back and add it to the whitelist. The site now also has a Wikipedia Page which is an effort to inform the readers about the Indian ecommerce market.

    • Not unblocking the whole domain, but if there is an index or about page that you can specify I can whitelist that. Stifle (talk) 18:00, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please let me know why the whole domain cannot be unblocked so that if possible, I can take adequate steps to resolve the problem. I would request to unblock the home page www.infibeam.com and the About us page www.infibeam.com/static/help/about-us.html Articleonline (talk) 05:37, 23 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Unblock so you "can take adequate steps to resolve the problem"? What is there to resolve? The site has been massively spammed on Wikipedia. Are you associated with that site? Please be aware that we do not accept unblock requests from a domain owner, employees, or anyone else with a conflict of interest. If a trusted, high-volume editor requests that the whole domain be unblocked, we would consider it.
    The home page exists purely to sell products. Wikipedia is not a portal to merchant sites. If you want to include a link in an article about the company, then the "about" page should be sufficient for that purpose. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:12, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm happy to unblock www.infibeam.com/static/help/about-us.html, but that will be all. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.hollywoodchicago.com/news/13178/interview-the-kings-speech-director-tom-hooper-colin-firth-masterful-studder

    The HollywoodChicago.com website was blacklisted due to the owner spamming film articles with unnotable review links. The above link is to an interview which is being used to support information in the Tom Hooper (director) article. Currently the only way to access it from Wikipedia is through a Webcite link, but I would like an active link to the original article to be in place. It could also prove useful for inclusion in the The King's Speech article. Bradley0110 (talk) 12:53, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Stuffed with ads and tracking cookies/links, dubious reliability; I am minded to decline but will leave open for a week or so and may be persuaded to reconsider. Stifle (talk) 08:25, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • No comment on the reliability, but it is a substantial interview. I tried viewing without AdBlock Plus, and the result has enough gimmickry to irritate, but nothing I found obnoxious. While the Webcite copy the article links to is still disfigured by no-brow photographs at the foot, it's cleaner and less irritating than the original. How (or in which browser) is the original superior? -- Hoary (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    smilelist.xf.cz

    Niusereset (talk) 09:22, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Already answered on frwiki. Regards — Arkanosis ✉ 18:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The link in the header is different to the linksummary provided. Please can you clarify? Stifle (talk) 14:50, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 18:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    My mistake... I was comunicating on fr.wiki and forgot to look again here. And to be honest... I don't understand to the question.
    Niusereset (talk) 12:26, 28 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Your header requests unblocking of smilelist.xf.cz. Under number 3, you write webzdarma.cz. Which website are you looking for unblocking? Stifle (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    norm.org

    norm.org: 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 I tried to add an external link to this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Safran%27s_Race_Relations - which refers to the organisation, but it was flagged as a blacklisted site. This article also refers to NORM and could benefit from a link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreskin_restoration

    I'm not sure why this site is blacklisted? It seems relevant to anyone wondering about this practice. The organisation is mentioned and described, but links to its official site are not allowed. NORM-UK actually has its own wikipedia page, but the original NORM is banned from Wikipedia? Omgplz (talk) 00:14, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • No log entry associated with the blacklisting, therefore there is a presumption in favour of removal. One week will be allowed for objections. Stifle (talk) 18:03, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'll try and have a look at this later, when I have access to COIBot. Just as a note, it looks like Foreskin restoration is already linking to the homepage of this organisation, and you mention as well 'which refers to the organisation'. Per WP:EL, these links are not direct on the 2 pages where you mention it. Where mentioned, the mention should be a wikilink to the subject page (even if it does not exist), we do not externally link for all organisations etc. which are mentioned on a page. I agree, that on the page on the subject (when it exists) a link to a homepage should be allowed. I'll look further later (but nothing against removal). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:54, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Could not really find anything, no objection. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • minus Removed Stifle (talk) 19:55, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    yfrog.com

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by OsamaK (talk • contribs)

    I don't think there's an index.php. yfrog.com/page/ should be harmless enough, it's the directory of all the stuff about the site. MER-C 10:45, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Vietvisiontravel.com

    Thanks for taking a look at this .. Sharktopus talk 17:28, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I'm not whitelisting the entire domain, because of spamming, but if you tell us what one page you are wanting to link I'll consider that. Stifle (talk) 08:26, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks so much -- just this one page would be all I want: www.vietvisiontravel.com/tour/pgid/44/aid/5911 Sharktopus talk 23:57, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    www.examiner.com/events-in-los-angeles/a-rae-of-sunshine-patricia-rae-beams-onto-the-big-screen-our-hearts

    Based in Los Angeles, Mona Elyafi has been writing entertainment news and personality profiles since 1992. She currently serves as the LA correspondent for Diva Fashion Magazine reporting on the latest Hollywood trends and covering celebrity interviews (Kim Kardashian, Katy Perry and Kimora Lee Simmons). Her articles have also appeared in The Washington Square News, Studio City Magazine & Salt Lake City Tribune. Elyafi holds a Master of Arts in journalism from New York University.
    The author does not appear to be a user who one day just logged onto The Examiner and made the article, and seems to have made the article with a reasonable level of professionalism. Her credentials as an entertainment journalist also seem to be backed up here and here. I, Jethrobot drop me a line (note: not a bot!) 17:35, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, the author seems professional, and the simple reason for this is that she is a professional publicist. Her articles may indeed appear in the infotainment sources that she names, but Google News hasn't heard of her. As for the two sources you give for her "credentials as an entertainment journalist", one is mere self-promotion and the other is for her credentials as a publicist, not a journalist. I realize that in the netherworld of C-list celebrity much of "journalism" is mere recycled PR puff; but even if she did have some PR-unrelated journalism credential, her blazingly obvious PR motivation would render her journalism unusable for encyclopedic purposes. -- Hoary (talk) 00:25, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.xs4all.nl/~wichm/deathnoe.html

    web.archive.org on otherwise-dead link www.examiner.com/x-23511-Portland-Science-Examiner~y2009m9d14-Local-inventor-plans-Launch-Loop-to-gratly-reduce-cost--of-space-travel

    I was directed here when I was tried to use the above Wayback Machine link in Keith Lofstrom, an article that seemed to need more third-party reliable sources. The specific problem was with examiner.com, which I now see is mentioned under the Common Requests category. The author of this article, Charles Radley, appears (from the photo) to be same Charles Radley listed here: http://visible.me/charlesradley1958438, and here http://www.linkedin.com/profile/view?id=269275&authType=name&authToken=0WPl&locale=en_US&pvs=pp&trk=ppro_viewmore with personal and professional interests, and geographic location, strongly overlapping the subject of the article. So it's not impossible that there's a personal connection between Radley and Lofstrom. On the other hand, Lofstrom's listed affiliations check out, possibly making him a reasonably reliable source on the subject. I haven't checked all of Radley's social networks, but despite Radley having a few dozen connections on Google Plus, Lofstrom is not one of them. Yakushima (talk) 07:45, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/picture-perfect--2/picture-perfect-rob-hornstra

    vbs.tv: 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

    I had not heard of the vbs.tv website/enterprise until an hour or so ago and know no more about it than what is written in the article about it or is visible on the single page there that's of interest to me. I presume that vbs.tv (in general) was blacklisted here for a good reason and am not challenging this. However, I want to add the following

    * "[http://www.vbs.tv/en-gb/watch/picture-perfect--2/picture-perfect-rob-hornstra Picture Perfect: Rob Hornstra]". Sixteen-minute [[VBS.tv]] video of Hornstra talking about his work and photographing in Sochi.

    to the list of external links at the foot of Rob Hornstra. The video is well made and (at least for readers interested in documentary photography) unusually interesting. The embedded video certainly does not spam anything and the page in which it is embedded does not noticeably spam anything either. Since I am not using Windows I have no Windows "virus protection" software running and do not know if the page has any malware payload, but I cannot think of any other possible drawback to the link.

    Please click on this particular vbs.tv link and view the result with an open mind.

    Again, while this particular video is worthwhile, I am (at this point) indifferent about the acceptability of the vbs.tv website. I'm therefore open to the idea of adding a link to the same video as embedded in some other site, one to which Wikipedia has no objection (and about which there are no copyright questions). Suggestions are welcome. -- Hoary (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PS Further reading (which I should have done in the first place, of course) reveals that vbs.tv is blacklisted because WP has been spammed with links to it. Because (i) I am requesting the addition of a single link to a single article, and (ii) I have made other edits to the same page, this shouldn't be an issue here. I note that A. B. wrote here (in 2008) that If an established, high volume editor requests whitelisting of a specific page that can serve as a reliable source for use in a citation, we can reconsider. "If" needn't imply "IFF", but all the same: (i) I am "established", and (ii) my "volume" is high; but (iii) I do not want to source anything to this video, because as a reader I am irritated to find an interesting assertion "sourced" to a video, which may or may not play on the computer I happen to be using, and which anyway won't have a text search facility. If you like, I could extend Since graduation Hornstra has combined editorial work for newspapers and magazines with more personal, longer-term documentary work in the Netherlands, Iceland, and the former Soviet Union by saying something about how he hopes to spend 10 to 15 years on Russia and thereafter to move elsewhere, and source the addition to the video; or I could add that the lengthy project about Sochi was Van Bruggen's idea rather than his own; or that he uses a medium-format camera (a Mamiya 7, surely); or that the current subproject within the Sochi project is on amateur lounge singers. Would this help? -- Hoary (talk) 02:48, 30 July 2011 (UTC) ... Somewhat altered Hoary (talk) 00:38, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    PPS Yes, I am an admin; and I read at the top Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist (and below You're a sysop, you don't need to ask). However, I'm very wary of using my superpowers to advance my priorities in editing, plus I've previously got in a tangle here, and although that ended up pretty well for all concerned, I'm probably not the most popular admin hereabouts. And so I claim no admin-specific privilege. Please deal with my request on its merits. -- Hoary (talk) 01:04, 1 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:17, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/auto-review-in-national/retro-car-revew-1979-1982-fiat-strada-fiat-s-end-of-the-road

    Pc13 (talk) 16:56, 7 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I did. I also noticed there are common requests for specific articles inside Examiner.com. I find nothing objectionable about this historical perspective article in particular. The only thing I need to do is cite dates, which are factual, not opinion. --Pc13 (talk) 16:07, 13 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/economics/a-recession-indicator-thats-hard-to-miss

    I have no idea how this site got blacklisted, it even has it's own article: MoneyWeek that includes an external link to the site. It seems to be a legitimate source of news. I need it for Kingdom Tower (Jeddah). Thanks. Daniel Christensen (talk) 23:45, 8 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • If possible, I would like just that link unblocked, I'm sure I won't need that site again. Daniel Christensen (talk) 02:18, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    It looks like it was part of a spam campaign, many domains and so on (if you follow the link 'tracked' in the template, you will be pointed to some discussions and users). I'll whitelist this one. plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:41, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I'm sure some of that site is spam and should be blocked but that link leads to a legitimate article. Daniel Christensen (talk) 20:13, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com/product/file-download/retreat-from-reality/13838213

    • Okay, will do. Didn't realise that was satisfactory. Blackwave87 (talk) 09:25, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/concert-in-new-york/interview-scott-russo-of-unwritten-law-explains-departure-of-longtime-members

    • 1. The URL is to an interview with the singer (and now only remaining original member) of the band Unwritten Law, explaining the departure of 2 of the band's longtime members. I'm not familiar with why the site (examiner.com) is blacklisted, but AFAIK interviews should be considered reliable because they are direct quotes from the primary source (the interviewee). In any case I'm simply trying to compile sources at Talk:Unwritten Law#Sources for use later, and this interview is a very useful source in referencing an important recent event in the band's history (the quitting of 2 longtime, primary members) and gives a side of the story as given by the singer that the other sources I've found don't give. In order to include quotes from the singer relating to the incident, I need to cite this URL.
    • 2. Unwritten Law
    • 3. 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

    --IllaZilla (talk) 17:56, 11 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ciquestudios.com/hurricaneclimate/2011/07/24/kam-biu-liu-paleotempestology-of-the-west-coast-of-mexico-new-proxy-records-of-eastern-north-pacific-hurricane-activities/

    Miss Madeline | Talk to Madeline 17:48, 12 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lulu.com/product/paperback/productivity/16516142/

    Generally it is possible to use {{Cite book}} with this (without a url to the location on lulu.com). Would that be a solution here? --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:06, 15 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.vbs.tv/watch/motherboard/twin-galaxies-and-the-golden-domes

    A portion of this video includes footage of a building I am writing about. (Currently at User:Will Beback/Sandbox 2, soon to be at Golden Domes.) While there is other video of it around, this is the only website which hosts a video which hasn't been created by others (i.e. copyvios). It's my understanding that the site has been blacklisted because of repeated spam efforts, and obviously this is not part of that. It would not be a used as a source, but as a useful external link.   Will Beback  talk  08:05, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:18, 16 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    Specific Suite 101 page

    www.suite101.com/article.cfm/80s_music/109642: 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 Can I get this one specific page added to the whitelist? It contains an interview with Vicki Peterson of the Bangles which I'd like to use as a reference for her article. Tabercil (talk) 02:15, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    You're a sysop, you don't need to ask :) Stifle (talk) 08:46, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True, but I listed it for two reasons... one was to avoid any conflict-of-interest charges. The other is I couldn't locate at the time the instructions on how to do it... (since corrected). I'll go ahead and do it. Tabercil (talk) 22:40, 15 June 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]

    I am supporting this but more general because that I was making Methyl thiocyanate and I needed look chem. The thing is to make it more general for lookchem. ~~EBE123~~ talkContribs 13:27, 29 June 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 [1]. Tiggerjay (talk) 00:50, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Agreed in principle; will be unblocked in a week or so assuming no further negative comments. Stifle (talk) 08:54, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved Stifle (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.helium.com/users/490158

    helium.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

    • I would like to request the whitelisting of www.helium.com/users/490158 for the Charles A. Ray article. While most helium.com pages are being used for self-published authors and are rightfully blacklisted, this particular helium.com page belongs to a U.S. Ambassador and is helpful for establishing a few biographical details that are left out of his official government biography. OCNative (talk) 01:44, 20 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've looked at the WP article, helium.com, and the specific page of helium.com, and second OCNative's request. -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved Hoary (talk) 01:09, 10 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    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]

    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]

    • Combining requests. Stifle (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can't open this to evaluate it due to filtering software at my workplace. That is a bad sign to start with, but I will try to check it from home and see then. Stifle (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done, article is a blog, fails WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 21:13, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Teal Scott

    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]

    One page on kavkazcenter.com - NEW request

    Hello, I just need you to unblock the page htt: / /. com so that I complete the article Yemeni al-Qaeda crackdown. Thank you Avangai, sorry for my English I'm French. :) Yotna (talk) 16:37, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please specify the exact link you want to use (omit the http:// at the start so it can be pasted here). MER-C 08:19, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.rock-the-jukebox.com/2010/12/nick-santo-of-doo-wop-group-capris-dies.html

    Could this page be included in the External Links section of The Capris (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Capris)? This link is among the top results for internet searches on Nick Santo, lead singer of the Capris, and is the top search result on Google for "nick santo dies". Appreciate your consideration. 173.170.160.145 (talk) 21:43, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The link was added to the blacklist after a series of edits - many by your IP - to add it to articles. Please read through WP:EL. WP:RS and WP:SPAM to obetter understand why the link is not appropriate. Thanks in advance. --Ckatzchatspy 21:52, 16 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This link is among the top results for internet searches on Nick Santo, lead singer of the Capris, and is the top search result on Google for "nick santo dies".

    I wonder why. MER-C 06:08, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Requester provides no rationale as to how Wikipedia benefits from including this link. Rejected. MER-C 12:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    tinyurl.com/3f3prqu

    This URL redirects to research papers search results in American Physical Society website. It was shortened using tinyurl given that the actual link contains characters that are not compatible with wikipedia's page code. This link is useful in the article regarding Michio Kaku.--LGNR (talk) 02:02, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Not needed. I have fixed the URL in the article (Michio Kaku), and explained on user's talk. Johnuniq (talk) 08:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done. See also /Common requests. Stifle (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    travelkashmir.net

    Community Service website- I was trying to add a following link travelkashmir.net/Places/Default.aspx under the SRINAGAR page of wiki website when it came up with error message 'Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.'

    This is a clean website which has useful information about Srinagar and other tourist place of Kashmir. Tourist or travelers can use this website also to search for important information like travel agents, tour operation, Hotels and Hospitals in case of emergency as it has a searchable database.

    I request administrator to visit the website 'travelkashmir.net' and see for yourself that this website can he useful for lot of people as it has good information and above all this website is for Community Service not for revenue.

    Request for removal of tis website from blacklist be considered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Solinaballa (talk • contribs) 06:11, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply] 

    $ whois travelkashmir.net
Registrant:
    vKashmir.com
    Inamul Bashir
    Tulsi bagh (Solina Balla)
    We do not perform whitelistings at the request of site owners. Additionally, the site does not meet the guidelines for reliable sources or external links.  Denied. MER-C 08:59, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Agree with you but the text used on this website is taken from the reliable source that is from Jammu & Kashmir Tourism Department.

    I dont wont to get into any argument as i respect wiki Guideline. Thanks

     Not done Wikipedia is not a travel guide. OhNoitsJamie Talk 14:30, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    backupurl.com/w9veil

    I would like to request that this page be whitelisted for use on the Intersex, Sex and/or Gender Diverse page. It is a backup of a Google cached version of a Mardi Gras event page. Mardi Gras routinely takes down pages for events which have occurred and the only other reference to this event and the specific quote regarding Mish GlitterPony is on a FaceBook page. LadySappho (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)LadySapphoLadySappho (talk) 11:28, 17 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • Appears to be a URL shortener. These are not generally permitted. Stifle (talk) 13:53, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined Stifle (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pMyhw4i1oWo

    This link is the only place where Ombrella Media has publicly uploaded their interview with Martin Page, and I think that the information obtained from the interview, where Martin Page is actually speaking to the interviewer and talking about his life and his music, is appropriate for use with the article, as he talks about "Blessed" and the effect that him playing it had on his mother. As far as I know, there is no better source for information about an artist and his work than from the artist himself. Thank you for your consideration.

    LadyCygnet (talk) 16:28, 19 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is not blacklisted, as you have pasted a working link here. Whitelisting is hence not required. MER-C 04:55, 20 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    ...however it'll get reverted in articlespace by XLinkbot if added by a new user. Stifle (talk) 10:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    There's no warning on the user's talk page and no reverts in the page history. The user's been here for four years and has more than 10 edits. MER-C 12:01, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    True.  Not done as it's unnecessary. Stifle (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    maxval.co.nr

    This is my own site. Plz unblck it. --maxval (talk) 12:18, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    http://maxval.freeweb.hu/ ? no Declined. MER-C 12:55, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    ExtremeSEO

    Article is up for deletion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Extreme SEO. MER-C 13:08, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  On hold pending the AFD outcome. Stifle (talk) 20:46, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article was deleted => no Declined. MER-C 02:48, 7 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    hubpages.com/hub/Tigers-in-Texas

    Mark Hurd (talk) 08:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • I seriously doubt that there are no better sources for this than a self-written hubpage. Stifle (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just Googled "Tigers in Texas" (with the quotes) to confirm what what other pages I could use and this page appears at ghit 6! Could I suggest this page should be {{NOINDEX}}ed! Mark Hurd (talk) 07:32, 4 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done Stifle (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ensenada.com

    • 1. Ensenada.com has become the official GOB website for the promotion of tourism represented by Xavier Rivas who is currently the Chief Adviser for Economic Development for the Mayor of Ensenada. Ensenada.com has unique bi-lingual content that is growing each day and supported by pro tourismo, Secretary of Tourism, the port of Ensenada and Mayor Enrique Pelayo. Black listing this website blocks important content relevant to the City of Ensenada Baja California. Please consider white listing. The admin we had before went over the line to promote.

    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]

    • This request page is for one or a few links from an otherwise blocked site to be requested for addition. As the site was blacklisted for spamming I am not prepared to delist it entirely. Please specify which particular links you would like added, as well as a rationale as to how this site meets WP:RS. Stifle (talk) 09:07, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was specified in the initial request. The sites would be List of mock object frameworks andList of unit testing frameworks. The link would be to [domain]/isolator-product-page and [domain]/isolatorpp-product-page. The activity took place several years ago and I understand that the offenders are no longer associated with the company. The company is well known in the unit testing world and has recently published articles (see /news on their domain) and spoken at several conferences Saalam123 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:34, 23 June 2011 (UTC).[reply]
    •  Not done We don't allow companies to advertise their products on Wikipedia. OhNoitsJamie Talk 16:36, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • This seems overly harsh. Typemock is a leading example of their industry. (I really expected my link to be blue :-( ) Mark Hurd (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • Got a reliable source for that claim? Stifle (talk) 08:49, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        Hmm... 8 pages into a Google search and they're all press releases (oh and references to suggestions bloggers and others will get kickbacks for linking to Typemock). It is a pity because they do seem to have a real presence in the market place. Mark Hurd (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    BestEssayHelp.com

    youtu.be/U9asAVWUArg

    [original title: "Wikipedia article Dhikr"]

    [youtu.be/U9asAVWUArg. Abdullah Ibrahim Ishmael Youtube]

    I request it cause it seems necessary to me to understand if there is any relationship with Music??-as I entitled the 2nd. level heading- be it either this one in particular or any other.--189.136.147.166 (talk) 23:18, 17 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Please use the full URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U9asAVWUArg . no Declined. MER-C 03:03, 19 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.water4gas.com

    i request this site be allowed as an example of those that offer a valid alternative to the claim that HHO as a fuel additive is junk science. i have examined the documentation and the proposed device and agree that it really does produce hydrogen gas for introduction into the combustion process. the only objection could be that the gas does nothing. i find it hard to believe that ignited hydrogen does nothing. i have read those arguments and can point out flaws in their deductions. i have authored a paragraph outlining those objections on the Oxyhydrogen wiki-page. also, i researched the matter extensively and can attest that this is the best example of the technology explanation available. very seldom do retail sites offer academic resources, but this one does. Wessonjoe (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2011 (UTC)wessonjoe[reply]

     Not done Per reliable sources and original research. OhNoitsJamie Talk 17:17, 21 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    since James has summarily deleted my edit and attempt at improving the coverage of the Oxyhydrogen article, i hereby serve notice that i am withdrawing my services. my edit was meant to communicate the veracity of the state of the science and new ogjections and suggest further avenues for consideration. if James cannot accept a valid discussion and must resort to legalistic determinations with no proof for his rejection then i see no use in being here. if this person continues to delete my attempts to help, i won't help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.30.59.130 (talk) 17:29, 22 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    hello. is anyone there that can help with this problem? hello. is anyone there? 71.30.59.130 (talk) 14:11, 26 July 2011 (UTC)wessonjoe[reply]
    This isn't a forum to air your grievances about other editors. This is not the place to discuss your content disputes. This is place to discuss items that are blacklisted. Waterforgas.com would not be considered a reliable source for any claim made in a Wikipedia article; see Wikipedia:Reliable sources. For your proposed content, see Wikipedia:Original research. The site exists to promote and sell products. If any academic sources are available on that site, then the academic journals they are published in should be referenced instead. Therefore, this whitelisting request is, once again,  Denied. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:53, 26 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

    www.examiner.com/cw-network-in-national/florence-and-the-machine-to-be-on-gossip-girl-s-new-episode-panic-roommate

    This is the only reliable source I could find that mentions Florence and the Machine's guest appearance in Gossip Girl with details. SnapSnap 01:28, 18 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read the /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 10:20, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:42, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    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]

    • Please specify the exact link. Stifle (talk) 09:23, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 10:21, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/fairies-in-national/interview-with-butch-hartman-on-the-fairly-oddparents

    I am trying to add this note with its corresponding ref, added below, for the Production section of the article A Fairly Odd Movie: Grow Up, Timmy Turner!. This is so far the only interview with Butch Hartman, creator of the series and the movie.

    In The Examiner's interview with creator Butch Hartman, the movie was inspired by Hartman's motive to "take the series in a new direction" by doing "a live action/CGI combo movie".[1]

    89119 (talk) 00:07, 6 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn requests, and requests that are malformed, invalid, or otherwise past relevance

    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]

    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]
    The MediaWiki page would stay where it is (pending software changes); just the requests process would move. Stifle (talk) 09:01, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How does this discussion page work, anyway?

    Stifle writes above: only a few sysops actually do anything here, myself being the most active one by some margin. I sympathize. I might even be willing to help out. But I'm baffled by the process, and I'd guess that I'm not alone in my bafflement. Is the red-cross icon the same as the circle-with-a-minus icon? Is "not done" the same as "declined"/"denied"? If I, as an admin who's uninvolved in a given problematic website and the relevant articles here (and also one with next to no experience in white/blacklisting), find that a particular request is either a blazingly obvious yes or a blazingly obvious no, can/should I announce the (not just my) verdict with the relevant icon and, if it's agreement, whitelist the particular page(s)/site? Are the requests near the top of this page that have what appear to be definitive verdicts appended to them still at the top (a) because nobody's had time to move them downwards, or (b) because the verdicts actually aren't definitive? What if I read one admin's verdict, think I understand all that's said and is relevant, and disagree with the verdict: should I post my contrary verdict, should I avoid doing this but politely question the verdict here or on the admin's talk page, or should I discreetly shut up? Etc. -- Hoary (talk) 00:51, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This discussion is kind of a mix of formal requests and informal formats. The tags for not done, declined, denied are interchangeable depending on your preference and how it fits with your response. They essentially all mean the same thing: the request is not granted.
    As an administrator, yes, you can investigate a request and if it's "blazingly obvious" what to do about it, then just do it. If it isn't blazingly obvious, then ask for clarification or move on to something else.
    Verdicts that are still at the top of the page are there simply because they haven't been moved into the resolved section. I'm not sure if there's even a bot that does this; I see it getting done manually from time to time. If you feel like moving them yourself, go right ahead.
    If you disagree with the decision of another admin, then as you should know, it is customary to write a note on the other admin's user talk page and come to an agreement or understanding, rather than revert the admin's decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you; I think I've got the general idea. I have "got my feet wet" by moving some unsuccessful requests downwards. However, I'll wait until I'm wider awake than I am now before I contemplate tampering with the actual blacklist. Additionally: it seems obvious to me that this request should be okayed; are we on the same wavelength? -- Hoary (talk) 23:46, 4 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Be aware that the whitelist and blacklist are two different things. This talk page is for the whitelist.
    Yes, you should whitelist that helium.com link. I am the person who originally blacklisted helium.com and removed the helium.com links from over 200 articles a few months back. I just left a few that seemed relevant (and the blacklist won't kick in on those unless they are removed and then re-added).
    If you're unfamiliar with regex, here's a tutorial: http://www.regular-expressions.info/
    And remember to log your changes (see instructions at the top of the whitelist main page). ~Amatulić (talk) 00:19, 5 August 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)

    1. ^ Kumar, Kala (2011-07-03). "Interview with Butch Hartman on "The Fairly OddParents"". Examiner. Retrieved 2011-07-05.}
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=445118221"