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 Anachronist (talk | contribs) at 19:17, 11 October 2011 (→‎bitly.com/pages/about: done). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Archives (current)→

    Spam blacklists
    Shortcuts

    The Spam-whitelist page is used in conjunction with the Mediawiki SpamBlacklist extension, and lists strings of text that override Meta's blacklist and the local spam-blacklist. Any administrator can edit the spam whitelist. Please post comments to the appropriate section below: Proposed additions (web pages to unblock), Proposed removals (sites to reblock), or Troubleshooting and problems; read the messageboxes at the top of each section for an explanation. See also MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Please enter your requests at the bottom of the Proposed additions to Whitelist section and not at the very bottom of the page. Sign your requests with four tildes: ~~~~

    Also in your request, please include the following:

    1. The link that you want whitelisted in the section title, like === example.com/help/index.php === .
    2. The Wikipedia page on which you want to use the link
    3. An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper
    4. If the site you're requesting is listed at /Common requests, please include confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you still desire to proceed with your request

    Important: You must provide a full link to the specific web page you want to be whitelisted (leave out the http:// from the front; otherwise you will not be able to save your edit to this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar with nothing after the / character) are likely to be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked please visit the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

    Note: Do not request links to be whitelisted where you can reasonably suspect that the material you want to link to is in violation of copyright (see WP:LINKVIO). Such requests will likely be summarily rejected.

    There is no automated notification system in place for the results of requests, and you will not be notified when your request has a response. You should therefore add this page to your personal watch list, to your notifications through the subscribe feature, or check back here every few days to see if there is any progress on it; in particular, you should check whether administrators have raised any additional queries or expressed any concerns about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in the request being denied.

    Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|455085408#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)

    american-business.org/2893-bucket-shop-history.html

    www.examiner.com/mma-in-paterson/amanda-nunes-expected-to-fight-september-10th

    You don't see a conflict of interest here, with citing your own work on a site that pays you for directing traffic to articles you write? If I happen to have a conversation with someone who has a bio on Wikipedia, does that mean I get to write it up on examiner.com and cite it? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:18, 22 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied. MER-C 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.ehow.com/about_5717578_prescription-bottles-orange_.html

    The future article Prescription bottle will benefit this. I have found a reliable article on eHow.com about the color of the prescription bottles. This site should be whitelisted because it is an article with reliable sources and references. I would like to whitelist: www.ehow.com/about_5717578_prescription-bottles-orange_.html
    ehow.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 --JC Rules! (talk) 01:20, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    How about citing the sources in the ehow article directly instead? MER-C 13:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Alright. --JC Rules! (talk) 06:21, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Ehow.com

    Please bear with me iif this is imperfectly done; I’m still learning how exactly this works.

    1. Ehow.com in general should be unblocked because it is a technical site; However, in the interim I am specifically requesting ehow.com/info_8143128_difference-between-grapeshot-canister.html be unblocked as it relates to grape shot and the development of chain shot.
    2. Grape and Chain Shot and article referencing them; Currently the MythBusters] talk page is in discussions on the matter. However, I will also be checking both the Grape and Chain Shot pages to see what they show.
    3. ehow.com/info_8143128_difference-between-grapeshot-canister.html A. J. REDDSON

    www.typemock.com

    Typemock is a start-up company that makes unit testing and mock object software development tools. They have been featured in SDTimes, Dr. Dobbs, and other software development media and also are well known in the development community. See, for example, http://drdobbs.com/architecture-and-design/231000839, http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/PCWorld/story?id=4999622, http://mashable.com/2011/06/09/armadillo/ (Armadillo was developed by Typemock), and is discused among software developers (see: http://codebetter.com/jeremymiller/2008/01/19/typemock-isn-t-too-powerful-and-quot-designing-for-testability-quot-is-much-more-than-merely-mocking-anyway/, http://stephenwalther.com/blog/archive/2008/03/16/tdd-introduction-to-typemock-isolator.aspx, http://www.mcdev.za.net/2011/06/getting-started-with-typemock-isolator-in-vs2010/, etc.)

    1. Typemock is relevant for articles like mock object, unit testing, and list of unit testing frameworks

    Amechad (talk)

    A page from AceShowbiz

    I was looking for a reference where the 13th Empire Awards were held and aceshowbiz.com/news/view/00014593.html was the only one I could find.--Gonnym (talk) 11:10, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    A page from Opus - Info

    I feel it would be helpful to whitelist the following page:

    www.opus-info.org/index.php?title=Preces

    While I can understand that the main web-site could be considered a propaganda site, the specific page shows a scan of a prayer which is being discussed on the page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preces_(Opus_Dei)

    An argument has arisen in the discussion on that page about the appropriateness of reproducing the whole prayer on wikipedia, and I feel that providing a link to an external website which displayes it could be a reasonable compromise.

    Link Summary: opus-info.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

    Anruari (talk) 12:40, 22 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    sedo.com

    sedo.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'm trying to edit the Wikipedia page for Sedo, and it gave me an error message saying that sedo.com was blocked. This domain is the legitimate home of a company that exists in both the US and Germany and operates internationally. I am trying to cite their website for product descriptions and some press releases the company has issued. All edits are intended to be informational/factual in nature and non-promotional. Please remove this block/blacklist. Thank you!

    Example pages within the domain are:

    • sedo.com (main domain should be unblocked altogether)
    • sedo.com/us/home/getting-started/ (home page)
    • sedo.com/us/sell-domains/sedomls/
    • sedo.com/us/about-us/ (company overview)
    • sedo.com/us/park-domains/features/
    • sedo.com/us/sell-domains/domain-brokerage/
    • sedo.com/us/services/domain-appraisal/
    • sedo.com/us/sell-domains/promote-domains/
    • sedo.com/us/services/domain-escrow/
    • sedo.com/sedopro/

    I understand that the URLs above link to Sedo's site and may contain promotional language. However, I fully believe that linking here validates the descriptions of how Sedo's products and services work. If these URLs should be left out, then the description of what Sedo does will simply not include citations from Sedo's website. Please let me know, though. 70.91.140.129 (talk) 14:14, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    If I recall correctly, many sites redirect to here, as a form of domain parking. Moreover, I did see some cases where there was inappropriate use (amongst others some work which looks like search engine optimization). I do agree, that Sedo does need a link to the homepage, does sedo.com/index.html (or something similar) work (the about-us is also a good one ..)? That would keep the rest of the site blocked, and hence then it can not be abused. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:28, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklisting discussion is m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2010-12#Sedo.com_-_Sedoparking.com. Indeed, parking and inappropriate pushing of the domain. Wikipedia is not the place to advertise where to buy domain names, please consider to whitelist specific links, but not the top domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:34, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    bitly.com/pages/about

    bitly.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

    • bitly.com/pages/about (About bitly)

    I understand blocking bitly.com links in general, but I am requesting this specific link unblocked, so I can reference it on bitly. Alternatively, if possible, all links under /pages/ could be whitelisted, as these are all internal informative pages. -- CowplopmorrisTalkContribs 15:27, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:17, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    themoviedb.org

    themoviedb.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

    This seems to be unintentionally blocked due to some combination of regex. I'm a little surprised that the site itself doesn't have an article, but it would be nice to be able to link to it in articles such as XBMC, XBMC4Xbox, MediaPortal, Plex (software), and other articles about Media Center software. I wouldn't encourage use of this link for articles about movies (could be seen as violating WP:ELNO#EL12 for movies), but in the context of media center software, it's odd to not mention the site. -- Ned Scott 19:43, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. It isn't unintentional. The site is explicitly blocked with its very own regex line in the blacklist. If you want to propose removing the entire domain from the blacklist, this page isn't the place to do it; see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist instead. Otherwise you can use this page to propose white-listing a specific page on that site. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:11, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    yfrog.com/nxigrfpj

    I am requesting to be allowed to add this specific link to the article The A-List: Dallas to serve as a reference for the tweet in question, which has been the source of a recent controversy surrounding the series. Thanks. 76.201.153.133 (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    Denied requests

    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]
     Not done on reflection, seems like a driveby request. Stifle (talk) 10:05, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.helium.com/items/1672168-adjule-mystery-dog-of-africa

    Hi! I would need this reference for the List of cryptids page, under Adjule. Thanks. Againme (talk) 15:45, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    • The author says next to nothing about the subject. He says Adjule are supposed to be canines that live in North Africa. Apparently, they wander around various parts of the Sahara Desert. (My emphases.) Supposed by whom? Apparent to whom? He doesn't say. He doesn't cite any source whatever for anything whatever. The page about him www.helium.com/users/197147 doesn't claim any particular expertise in ethnozoology, zoology, ethnography, anthropology, Africa, or anything else that's putatively relevant (let alone any way to verify such a claim); he's merely a guy who likes to write for helium.com. Quite aside from the fact that the domain is blacklisted, this page you want to use as a "reference" seems to me a textbook case of what an encyclopedia should not bother to mention, let alone cite. Or do I misunderstand? -- Hoary (talk) 10:30, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined. MER-C 13:29, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fibre2fashion.com/news/technology-textiles/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=71696

    The article - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_to_garment_printing will benefit from this, as it does not currently cite enough references. This site should be whitelisted because it includes industry news from a verifiable third-party source. I would like to whitelist www.fibre2fashion.com/news/technology-textiles/newsdetails.aspx?news_id=71696
    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tamarweiss (talk • contribs) 14:53, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a press release, which you can find on other websites like this one. no Declined. MER-C 13:28, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    melbel.hubpages.com/hub/Unicru

    --warchildbosnia 02:06, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Why do you think this page is a reliable source? Have you read the common requests? MER-C 13:24, 31 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    I am a freelance writer going to school for computer science. I love the Ruby programming language, but am now learning Perl. My writing is what helps me pay for college, so feel free to backlink, tweet, and facebook like my hubs.

    — melbel.hubpages.com
    Author clearly has no authority in this area, so this is not a reliable source. Also, no response. no Declined. MER-C 02:58, 8 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]


    aerobaticteams.net/blue-angels-history.html

    There is a much more information about Blue Angels then this article. Wikipedia article Blue Angels. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.85.65.123 (talk • contribs)

    Well, we generally expand the Wikipedia article then, we are writing an encyclopedia here. And I do note, that you are in the same range of the editors who were actually spamming this link on our Wikimedia projects. I don't see any compelling reason for now to whitelist this, hence no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:15, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh boy.
    So includes evading of blacklist, multiple IP-ranges spamming, etc. etc. I would really suggest you read through WP:NOT, WP:RS, WP:EL, WP:SPAM, WP:COI, and more, and the whole lot before even considering to re-request. This is Wikipedia, an encyclopedia, it is not our primary goal to have links to all sites suitable. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    a page about the Carbfix Project

    I wanted to add a link to this page carbon.energy-business-review.com/news/carbfix-project-to-start-carbon-injection-in-next-month-090911 as a cite note for the CarbFix article stub that I've just started - not sure why this site has been blacklisted but it seems a bit inconvenient {{LinkSummary|carbon.energy-business-review.com}} I could probably use the carbfix's own site for this reference but that seems worse. If I get some spare time I might go look for an alternate source. EdwardLane (talk) 11:24, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    The whole of -business-review.com was a problem, and it has been spammed quite often, quick search:
    The whole of that was therefore blacklisted. Alternative source may be good, but otherwise no objection against whitelinking this specific link for this use. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:35, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    found exactly the same article on another site - wonder if that's blacklisted too (well I shall see) :) EdwardLane (talk) 17:46, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined as moot: [1]. MER-C 04:00, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    thomaschen.freewebspace.com

    I don't see any spam here. This provides source material for articles such as Chinese swords, Jian, and Dao (sword). thomaschen.freewebspace.com/custom4.html, ...custom2.html, etc. Asoer (talk) 12:40, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. Notwithstanding that the site contains irritating blinking ads, it's a self-published source, essentially a personal hobby project of someone who works as an IT professional, not a site run by a recognized authority in the field. Links to such sites should be avoided. Freewebspace is blocked because sites on it have been spammed in the past in spite of the fact that everything on it is self-published material that Wikipedia can't use. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:05, 23 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of 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]
    I haven't said that the original is superior, just that it looks suspicious to cite a web interview without including a full link to the the original article. Bradley0110 (talk) 06:56, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    A little odd, perhaps; but suspicious? If there are two alternatives, and one (WebCite) works as is, whereas the other (the original) has more advertising, isn't superior, and would require editing of files here, can't we just go with the former? -- Hoary (talk) 10:18, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    As long as it wouldn't harm the article at a possible future FAC, then yes (although the information being supported in the citation may be repeated in future reliable sources, so it could be supplanted then). Bradley0110 (talk) 11:06, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    You're very welcome to link here in any future FAC discussion; plus you'd be welcome to notify me of any difficulty. -- Hoary (talk) 12:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Note: the URL above redirects to wichm.home.xs4all.nl/deathnoe.html
    If there are no copyright problems with the content on that site, then I see no problem whitelisting it. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:03, 22 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.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]

    Examiner.com is blacklisted because it's what WP has termed a self-written, commission-paying site. IFF a published "interview" really contains the accurate (if abridged) transcription of an actual interview, then yes, it gives us direct quotes from the primary source. But why should this particular "interview" be taken seriously? (NB I'm not saying that it shouldn't; I'm just asking.) -- Hoary (talk) 00:12, 20 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    Why should it be taken less seriously than any other interview? If you look at it, it consists simply of questions from the interviewer, followed by long responses from the interviewee. Pretty straightforward. The reason this particular interview is significant (aka a reason to take it seriously) is that it's the only source I have been able to find where the frontman of the band gives his explanation for the departure of 2 longtime members of the band, which resulted from a physical altercation with him. The 2 departing members issued statements that have been re-printed by other reliable sources, but the frontman hasn't given his side of the story, as far as I can find, except for in this interview. As this is an event of no small significance to Unwritten Law as a band (the loss of half the band members—one of whom was a founding member who had been in the band for 20 years, the other of whom had been in the band for 13 years—due to a physical altercation with the frontman), I feel it's important to cover both parties' sides of the story when discussing the event in an encyclopedia (eg. "The 2 departing members said this, while the frontman said this"). To do that I need to cite both parties, which is why I need the interview. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:08, 21 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.reflectionsindia.org/article.php?nav=11

    --Profchakraborty iitkanpur (talk) 12:40, 21 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    www.pornhub.com

    I would like to remove http://www.pornhub.com/ from this whitelist. I was making sure what the site was, and, almost being scarred for life, the site was pornographic. I would like this site, and all other pages associated with this, taken off the whitelist and reblocked.--JC Rules! (talk) 01:22, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    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)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=455085408"