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 22:04, 2 October 2012 (→‎MoneyWeek.com: 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|515696906#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.whale.to

    I'd like to be able to link to this article in Wilhelm Reich -- Sobey, Victor (1956). "An Eyewitness Report of the Burning of Scientific Books in the USA, 1956" -- which is at http://www.whale.to/b/reich23.html I only need that one link to be whitelisted. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:04, 28 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    http://www.whale.to/b/reich23.html  Done--Hu12 (talk) 15:15, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Many thanks. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I object to this move. If whale.to was just a quirky--but not reliable--source, it wouldn't be a big deal, but it's one of the most egregious websites on the internet when it comes to hosting conspiracy theories, extremely libelous content, and other unscientific and nonsensical material. This site isn't just unreliable in a careless manner, but is downright malicious in its disregard for accuracy, truth, and legitimate content. It almost seems that it seeks to avoid anything that would fall within the boxes containing mainstream scientific fact and opinion, and then hosts everything that falls between the cracks outside those boxes. The degree of ignorance is appalling. The rare content that's usable here can be found elsewhere, or can just be referenced without providing a URL to whale.to.
    There is no policy-based justification for this move, so we're creating a slippery slope, not just using one. Until it's a requirement to always provide an active URL as part of a reference, I don't see the need to include URLs to that website. Just provide the reference and those who really want to see it can find it themselves. We don't need to provide a link. (This doesn't apply to many other blacklisted sites. Many of them are blacklisted because they are spammed, not because all their content is bad, like this one.) Please provide your thoughts on this. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:18, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It's just that one link, not the site as a whole, and I can't find that material anywhere else. It's a letter from a physician about Reich (and a supporter of his), offering an eyewitness account of the burning of Reich's books in 1956, so it's of historical interest as a primary source for that article. I can't see any reason to force readers to go hunting for it, when we can link to it directly. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:25, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not questioning the historical interest, or even the possibly dubious nature of such book burnings, but we really shouldn't link directly to websites of such poor quality when we aren't required to by policy. Policy doesn't require a URL, and in this case it doesn't seem absolutely necessary. There should be very compelling reasons for doing so with a website like this one. It would be tantamount to linking directly to one of TB's websites. That's pretty low!
    If this is done anyway, we should add a hidden editorial note that links to this discussion and warns the reader about the blacklisted status of the website.
    Here's some relevant background:
    -- Brangifer (talk) 19:07, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The root domain has not been white listed or removed from the blacklist. This whitelisting was for a single specific link, to a letter written in the 50's. If there is any reason to believe the Letter by Victor M. Sobey has been altered, edited or otherwise falsified, please provide that evidence. --Hu12 (talk) 19:33, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand both your points, but I wasn't addressing them. (I know that it's only that one URL, and I haven't implied the very short letter has been altered. BTW, such a letter wouldn't be considered a RS, unless cited by a very RS. Even then, a URL is not required.) I just don't see a reason to link directly to that site at all. The only exception would be an article about the whale.to site, and that was deleted. If policy required a URL link in every reference, it would be a different matter. -- Brangifer (talk) 01:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand you general concern regarding this site, and its abuse history is on record, however the MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist is not the Wikipedia complaints department.  Completed--Hu12 (talk) 01:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Fair enough. Thanks for at least considering the matter, and I have no intention of doing more, other than leaving a hidden note when this link is used. We owe other editors that much, otherwise they'll think that it's suddenly okay to start using whale.to as a ref. (OTOH, I disagree with the declaration that it's not proper to object here. Where else should it be done when necessary? This is the logical place. It would be disruptive to spread such a disagreement into other venues like noticeboards, since dispute resolution often creates lots of disruption and wasted time for many editors. It's usually best to deal with matters quietly, on the spot. Again, I have no intention of pursuing this matter. I'm just curious about what to do in the future.) -- Brangifer (talk) 02:08, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    For a complaint about the specific link used in the specific way proposed here, the appropriate venue would be WP:RSN. If the community agrees that the link is not suitable for the purpose intended, then we can de-whitelist it. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That makes perfect sense. Thanks. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:33, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    For future reference,there's much more history about that link at:

    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:25, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.justjaredjr.com/2012/04/01/taylor-swift-kids-choice-awards-2012   on article Taylor Swift

    A request to add only this specific website to reference Taylor Swift article and pic in winning an award for her multiple charitable organizations. The news was also repeated elsewhere and televised, so it isn't an unverified item, and it is a good pic of her with Michelle Obama. I don't understand why this entertainment source is blacklisted entirely. According to its 'About' section, "...Today, JustJared.com and Just JaredJr.com receive over 14 million unique visitors a month. Just Jared was recently named to Yahoo’s prestigious Top 10 Bloggers Roll (alongside the Huffington Post & TMZ) and was previously highlighted by Vanity Fair & InStyle as one of the world’s leading Entertainment Sites." Can someone please explain the reason for blacklisting the entire site? I presume JustJared.com is also blacklisted. If they are for a legitimate reason (please explain), can you allow this one reference on Taylor Swift's page? Thank you. Katydidit (talk) 21:31, 4 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Whilst we are not obligated to justify the decision to blacklist a page, it appears this was blocked as a blog, and there is no evidence it is a reliable source. Has that changed? Stifle (talk) 16:13, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]


    FYI, here are the original blacklist log entries: [1][2]
    The blacklisting administrator (now no longer active on Wikipedia) noted that domain as possibly hosting copyright violations.
    I notice the same content appears at:
    I don't know if one site is stealing content from the other or perhaps they're both legally using the same syndicated news source.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 02:42, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    outrate.net

    This domain is no longer active, but http://www.archive.org/ still has it. Nevertheless, the domain is listed as a blacklist. I intend to use the review from that defunct website for the Inch by Inch (film) article, but I guess there is no way, as long as the domain is blacklisted. --George Ho (talk) 11:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    outrate.net: 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

    You can still use a site as a reference, even if a working link is not possible. However, what is the exact url to the document that you want to use a sa reference? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:44, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to post the exact url here, but it won't let me, archived or not. --George Ho (talk) 11:47, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you post it without the starting http://, it works. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here: http://web.archive.org/web/20101126192052/http://outrate.net/?p=53 --George Ho (talk) 07:41, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/paul-triple-h-levesque-gives-an-insider-view-of-inside-out-and-the-wwe

    ŞůṜīΣĻ¹98¹Speak 19:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    free-comic-book-day-what-a-haul

    Please add the following page:

    1. examiner.com/article/free-comic-book-day-what-a-haul

    2. For this article: Free Comic Book Day

    3. It is useful because it supports the statement "However, successful Free Comic Book Day events in 2005 and 2006 did not have specific date tie-ins to comics-related movie openings, proving that the event is more than capable of standing on its own, while the 2004 event was linked with the July opening of the second Spider-Man movie and was deemed less successful for falling outside of the regular school year." within the Free Comic Book Day article.

    4. It directly supports that statement and it includes comments that support things within the FCBD article supported by other references (such as the distributor and purposes of FCBD), which would serve to verify the reliability of the article. Whitelisting requests for Examiner.com pages are usually denied because they might be written by the person they are about, but this article is about an event and not a person. I am a long time editor with no previous ties to Examiner.com or the author Robert Sodaro; I am only trying to add a reference to a sentence within the Free Comic Book Day article that needs one. Spidey104 14:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this request formatted correctly? Is there anything I can do to help the reviewer with their analysis of my request? One week from today my life will be drastically changing and I won't be able to respond to requests for more information very quickly. Spidey104 17:22, 26 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Have you read /Common requests? Stifle (talk) 16:56, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I read Common requests when I posted this and that's why I wrote what I did in #4. Is there something I didn't address that I need to? Spidey104 18:28, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    As Examiner.com has little editorial control and anyone can submit content, it is not considered a reliable source. Is there any particular evidence that that is not the case in this particular instance? Stifle (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    All statements made in the examiner article can be confirmed by other references used in the Free Comic Book Day article, except for the statement I quoted above in #3. That is why I want this particular article to be whitelisted to serve as a supporting reference for that quote. That information was added a long time ago and with many news articles no longer posted online it is, unfortunately, the only one remaining to still have that information about the lack of success of the 2004 FCBD. If the rest of the article is confirmed by other sources wouldn't that count as reliable? Spidey104 15:38, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If alternative sources exist that aren't online, why not use those? There is no requirement that sources be online. Also remember archive.org is useful for recovering news articles that the news site has stopped publishing. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:51, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It has been 6 years; I don't remember those sources anymore. Remembering that useful piece of information is easy, whereas remembering exactly where it came from is very difficult. Regardless of those alternative sources that are basically impossible to find I believe I already established the reliability of this source which was the main concern. So can it be whitelisted now or are there other problems I need to address? Spidey104 00:34, 23 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Free Republic page

    I am trying to cite a freerepublic page that has the text for an article from 10 years ago that I cannot find in archives. If i post the link it says its spam. the link it this (just remove the space between "free and" "republic") www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/669175/posts DarkChaos27 (talk) 07:06, 23 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Polock Johnny's

    www.examiner.com/article/polock-johnny-s-a-baltimore-favorite-since-1921

    Writing an article on this restaraunt, and would like to use this source for historical references. Fasttimes68 (talk) 18:22, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com article on upcoming Paul McCartney DVD release and television special

    First off, I would like to mention that this is my first time making such a request, so forgive me if the format isn't perfect...

    1. I am not asking for examiner.com to be whitelisted in its entirety, but rather just a specific link to a specific article. I am currently editing an already existing Wikipedia page that would greatly benefit from the information that this page offers. I have looked for this same information on other articles on other sites, but have been unable to find it in its entirety as it is shown in this particular article. The information in this article is pertinent to the page I am editing.

    2. The specific page that I have been referring to that would benefit from the whitelisting of this article is the iTunes Live from Capitol Studios page. However, it is also worth mentioning that this is part of a larger chronology of albums released by Paul McCartney and, in addition, this article also mentions specific information regarding a future DVD release that will company the page I am editing. Therefore, the page may be useful again in the future once the DVD (and the accompanying tv special) is released.

    3. The link to the specific article in question is as follows: www.examiner.com/article/slideshow-first-look-at-photos-for-new-paul-mccartney-pbs-tv-special

    Link summary: 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

    Thank you very much for your time. Hay264 (talk) 16:28, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    lemairesoft.sytes.net

    Reason: sytes.net is blocked since 2006 on meta because it has been spammed before. However, this particular website, lemairesoft.sytes.net, hosts a website containing a lot of useful informations on WWII weapons, planes and ships. It has even been cited on other websites. Could it be possible to add it to the whitelist ? Thanks a lot. Gonzolito Pwet 12:31, 24 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Best Things On Earth

    MoneyWeek.com

    I've read some of the background on Money Week blacklisting, it has reputable journalists, but the publishers didn't seem to want to follow the rules of Wikipedia back in 2009. I'm wanting to put in a reference to a potentially contentious comment on Sir Peter Bazalgette's article, who has just been appointed to a new government sponsored post in the UK.

    Some people have joked that whilst his illustrious ancestor was responsible for helping London rid itself of so much foetid detritus; through his TV programmes, Sir Peter has merely channelled it all back again.

    The way forward seems to be a whitelist for specific Money Week articles like this one. The link I'd like to use to substantiate this is www.moneyweek.com/news-and-charts/profile-peter-bazalgette Wikiwayman (talk) 14:55, 5 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems reasonable. To be honest, I am minded to remove it from the blacklist fully. Stifle (talk) 16:10, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let's talk about it on the spam-blacklist page first, before making that decision. 2009 is not all that long ago. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:52, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please do not remove moneyweek.com or other Agora Publishing domains from the blacklist without discussion. I blacklisted these several years ago because the publisher and various Agora editors spammed them repeatedly. I observed at the time that these expensive financial newsletters were often just opinions, anyway. One Agora newsletter might be hyping gold while another might be hyping short-selling gold. I don't think these are always reliable sources unless you need them for our Hype article. I'd hate to see us remove this from the blacklist then have these spammy links proliferate again.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs) 03:02, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, white listing the specific article I asked for should be no problem; my point for making the request is that the opinion has been published in a wide-circulation publication. Because of the way the Wikipedia article is written, the accuracy of the Money Week editorial doesn't matter; it's the publication itself which is notable. (n.b. I also intend to tone down the wording, it's too flowery and smacks of additional editorialising by whoever contributed that part of the article). Wikiwayman (talk) 19:05, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I have no objections to white-listing individual URLs where appropriate; my comments were in connection with possibly removing the entire domain from the blacklist. I'll let someone else make the final call on this request. --A. B. (talk • contribs) 19:44, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com Article

    • 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
    • article: www.examiner.com/article/m-e-suspect-killed-by-police-bar-shooting-identified-as-teen-from-honduras
    • I have read /Common requests
    • Article to be used in: List of killings by law enforcement officers in the United States 2012
    • Note from author's examiner page, "Former police reporter for The State newspaper"
    • I can not find another reference to the suspects name, we sometimes havea hard time to track down name of individuals, since they are withheld from the initial media reports, and by the time they are released, the news cycles have moved on. Suprcel (talk) 19:44, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Quite uncertain that this constitutes a reliable source in this context. If it were notable enough to be included, I think it would be in a more mainstream publication. Stifle (talk) 20:51, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • The entry is already on the list describing the incident itself. we have another WP:RS for most of the details. The only thing we need this article for is the Name of the individual. Because the names are not always released right away, some of the names are never reported in a mainstream publication. You can see in our list there are currently 20 people without names for this year alone. We are always looking for sources that have the names but sometimes they just don't exist. Suprcel (talk) 16:42, 25 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Interview with Heri Joensen in The Metal Observer

    Pages can not be excluded from the spam blacklist, unfortunately. Hence that the edit-notice at the top of the edit page suggests that you post the link without the preceding 'http//' (I have updated the link, is clearer than maiming the link with dots or spaces, though that was fine as well). I hope this explains.
    Back in 2009 when this was blacklisted, it was mentioned that besides the plain spamming that occurred back then (multiple IPs), that the site had been discussed on our RSN board and deemed unreliable. That situation regarding reliability may have changed (as may the spam risk now be next to zero, three years after blacklisting), though you already say that you recently struck the block quote from the article .. do you now consider the quote worthy of inclusion? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:58, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, I was getting a little frustrated with the spam filter when it blocked me here too. I didn't see the part about the http, but thanks for pointing that out. Yes, I would consider the quote appropriate for inclusion, as it was Heri Joensen of Týr explaining the band's 'mission' in an interview. I think this is certainly appropriate to the band's article, but we can't just lift a block quote from an interview without citing the source. Since I don't know anything about TMO's original blacklisting, and I don't frequent their web site, I really couldn't say whether removing them from the blacklist would be a good idea or not, but I don't see how linking this article could hurt anything. I'd like to include the quote with a reference to the interview linked above. Thanks again for your help with this. Wilhelm Meis (☎ Diskuss | ✍ Beiträge) 04:15, 17 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    fluoridealert website on main article Fluoride Action Network

    Hello

    Fluoridealert.org website which is blacklisted has had a design change. due to that, few sourced links on WK Fluoride Action Network have become dead (FAN is Fluoridealert.org , and is properly linked in "External links"). I am asking for 3 links to be whitelisted within fluoridealert for the FAN WK article dead links :

    1."about FAN" www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/about

    2. The signed petition www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/researchers/professionals-statement/

    3. FAN Advisory board www DOT fluoridealert DOT org/about/team/

    Thank you.79.177.29.96 (talk) 14:47, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Evidence of several recent attempts, by requesting IP and others to circumvent blacklisting by adding URL shorteners ([3][4][5]) including multiple plain text URL additions([6][7][8]). these are not signs of good faith.--Hu12 (talk) 13:11, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well i was reading the Fluoride Action Network Wikipedia article, and was interested to see the cited sources. I was not aware it was such a felony on Wikipedia to remedy those links with short URLs to very plain and non controversial info, i mean the original sourced links were already there just were dead due to website design cange. Once one of the moderators has corrected me to come here (Whitelist page) - I came here. (i deed one more quick testing to see what is blocked which i immediately reverted myself). So please assume good faith :) Thanks109.64.13.85 (talk) 16:54, 27 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hey guys, still waiting for resolution. thanks109.64.9.90 (talk) 17:56, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com article on The Walking Dead video game

    I would like to use the article www.examiner.com/article/walking-dead-video-game-launches-today on The Walking Dead (2012 video game) to show that the game was written by Sean Vanaman. JenniBees (talk) 21:22, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    This source covers that base, and as such whitelisting is unnecessary here.  Not done OhNoitsJamie Talk 23:39, 29 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    That link shows that he was the project leader for The Walking Dead. The link I linked to showed that he's the writer as well, and it's the only link that I could find to verify it. I've verified it myself that he was also the writer and it is factual, but I can't just add him to the writer field in the infobox without a reference as that's original research. That's why I asked for the link to be whitelisted. JenniBees (talk) 00:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Other links:
    http://splashpage.mtv.com/2012/04/12/walking-dead-video-game-no-child-is-safe/
    http://www.nypost.com/p/blogs/gamereport/walking_dead_episode_preview_with_jYYgoFSQTLnVchpDxtQ6AP
    found in about 30 seconds by Googling for "Sean Vanaman" "walking dead" writer. Seems to be plenty of sources that verify he's a writer and designer of the game. No need to white-list yet another examiner.com link. Again, no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Free Republic Article on Oolong the rabbit

    I would like to use the comments from the article www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136189/posts (specifically www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1136189/posts#comment) as a citation to show that most reactions to Oolong_(rabbit), the rabbit who balanced things on its head, on the Internet were positive. The article is simply a re-post of the original story from Syberpunk.com which was cited extensively as having started the internet hype, however the freerepublic.com article has comments. A citation was requested and it's very difficult to find sources that detail people's reaction on the Internet.Tucoxn (talk) 00:04, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done for the following reasons:
    • First, we should reference the original source, not a re-publisher.
    • Second, user-generated content isn't even acceptable for external linking (see WP:ELNO), so such content is certainly not acceptable for use as a reference.
    Please use the original source. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    thebestof.co.uk/local/monmouth/events/323660/open-evening

    Please note that this is my first request to whitelist a link. I am only requesting that this specific page, the best of monmouth, be whitelisted. During the course of creating a page yesterday, Wye Bridge Ward, I came across a short article, The Royal Oak, Monmouth, that seemed to be in danger of deletion. It only had one reference. I went ahead and added a reference and a small amount of text. I reconsidered though, and decided to copy edit the article, including adding sources for existing material. Concerned that it wouldn't be enough to save the article, I decided to do a full expansion. This particular page is the only one that I have found so far that specifically describes the Monmouth Rotary Club event at The Royal Oak. The Monmouth Rotary Club is a philanthropic organization, which I think is deserving of an article of its own. I was hoping to use this page for both the preexisting article The Royal Oak, Monmouth and a future article on the Monmouth Rotary Club. In addition, I have been able to verify the accuracy of the contents of the lecture given that evening by the guest speaker with a BBC source. Thank you. Anne (talk) 13:53, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/president-obama-signs-executive-order-allowing-for-control-over-all-us-resources

    this is a combination opinion and fact piece. I want to use it on the site National Defense Resources Preparedness executive order I am creating as an example of the [right-wing] criticism of the order. Yes, I have read Common requests, and I have also read the comments on the examiner's talk page. Kdammers (talk) 02:01, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    cbronline: 26 April 1992 article

    http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/nancy-s-story

    http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/nancy-s-story was written by Mel Neuhaus. I plan to use it for To Whom It May Concern: Ka Shen's Journey.

    His [http://www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus about page]WebCite states:

    Mel Neuhaus has spent the past three decades writing almost exclusively about and for his lifelong passion: the movies. His articles/interviews/reviews have appeared worldwide in such renowned publications and on-line sites as Turner Classic Movies, Home Theater and Sound & Vision.

    In other words, he has published or reviewed for Turner Classic Movies, Home Theater Network, and Sound & Vision. Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Self-published sources (online and paper) states,

    Self-published material may be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources.

    I believe that Neuhaus meets the criteria of being an "established expert" in the field of film. I will primarily use the information in the article, particularly the interview, with film director Brian Jamieson to extend the "background and production" section. I will use critical commentary from Neuhaus to expand the "Reception" section. Cunard (talk) 06:41, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Request is by high-volume respected user, I am inclined to allow it. Approved Stifle (talk) 16:17, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com on Terry Riley

    I've used www.examiner.com/article/terry-riley-s-benefit-performance-for-old-first-concerts as a reference (URL currently commented out) on Terry Riley. It's a run-of-the-mill concert review; I have no connection with the author. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Closed: Examiner.com can be paid for publication, regardless of the status of the editor choosing to use the source. It also takes press releases and publishes them as if they were original, third-party articles. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:04, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Jeremy112233, you are free to make recommendations, but we don't do non-admin closures here. We're well aware of what examiner.com is, it's described in /Common requests, and each request must be reviewed on a case by case basis, not simply closed by default. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:49, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Requested by a high-volume user: Approved Stifle (talk) 16:29, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    gcaptain.com/world%E2%80%99s-largest-carrier-roro/

    gcaptain.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

    • Article: [9]
    • Reason: On this topic, GCaptain has some interesting coverage which goes beyond that in other reliable sources. I'd like to use it to expand the article. I don't know why the site was blacklisted before but in this case I'm trying to use it as a source; I'm not a spammer. If it is possible to whitelist other pages I may come back here later and request whitelisting to allow improvements in other shipping articles on enwiki. bobrayner (talk) 14:14, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved Stifle (talk) 16:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    php-unit-test.batcave.net on PHP Unit Testing Framework

    php-unit-test.batcave.net: 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

    For my page http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PHP_Unit_Testing_Framework I have have to move the page from http://php-unit-test.sourceforge.net to php-unit-test.batcave.net as Sourceforge no longer enables one to edit web pages. Just need the Official web site in the External links to change the URL to http:// php-unit-test.batcave.net/

    Denied requests

    Dialog TV Subscribers Unite

    Kind attn: All admins and Respective concerns. With reference to the Wikipedia page (en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dialog_TV) we would like to request your consideration to unlock the URL concerned as dialogtv.blogspot.com

    Please be noted that, The subject web portal is the official subscribers unite web site for the Dialog TV subscribers in Sri Lanka. It will focus on concerns of pluses and cons of the service, the updated news and rest of the concerns regarding the service rendered by DTV

    All the information as you also might consider be formal, forward, productive and infomational. Will discuss and attain regarding the developments and criticize with productive moderation.

    By including the web portal in wikipedia will enhance the encyclopedia by extending the user comments of the service on both pluses and cons. Therefore, we seek your kind consideration to Fully-whitelist or Ashlist the subject web portal only and allow it to cross link from wikipedia itself.

    We thank you in advance for your efforts in this regards.

    • This page is for requests to whitelist one or a few specific named pages from a blocked site. Requests for the entire site to be permitted would need to go to MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist in the appropriate section, but such a request would fall to be denied for this site as it appears to be spammy and not a reliable source. This is also  Denied. Stifle (talk) 17:04, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    s14.invisionfree.com/Conchologist_Forum/ar/t2125.htm

    I would like to use this description of the dwarf surf clam for an article I am writing which will soon be moving into mainspace as Mulinia lateralis. I have been unable to find a good description of this shell elsewhere. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 19:24, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    If you just need a text description, is there any reason why a forum posting is preferable the numerous reliable sources that already exist on the topic?
    If you need one of the images, have you asked the author of those images to upload one of them to Wikipedia (or better yet, Commons)? That would be more useful to the article than an external link.
    This isn't a denial of your request, just a request for clarification. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:37, 30 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I wanted a text description because I could find no other. Admittedly, I might have found more information if I had searched further but once one has looked at the first thirty or so results of a Google search, one loses enthusiasm. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 18:19, 31 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Source from Examiner.com

    I triggered a spam filter. I want to add the link with the article name 'madonna-paris-concert-reports-proven-false-by-fbi-and-fans; to the MDNA Tour page but it is not allowed.MysticMuffin (talk) 16:24, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    A History of Broadcasting in the Philippines From World War II to the Birth of Philippine Television

    I have finally found a summarized history of broadcasting in the Philippines, this self-published work(www.socyberty.com/history/a-history-of-broadcasting-in-the-philippines-from-world-war-ii-to-the-birth-of-philippine-television) is from a reliable author, but apparently the domain is currently blacklisted. I hope to use this on the history section of ABS-CBN Corporation to support the statements written on the article. The article has too many unsupported statements and needs verification. Thank you. Hollyckuhno (talk) 12:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you note, it is self-published, therefore not a reliable source. Therefore this request is  Not done. Stifle (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    z4.invisionfree.com

    I would like z4.invisionfree.com/telenovelas/index.php?showtopic=1732 to be unblocked as I'm using it as a filmography reference for Alejandro Felipe. I have searched other sites, but there is none, apart from IMDB, but I'm not using that as a reference.--Mjs1991 (talk) 08:50, 26 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Close as no: This makes no sense as IMDB is considered a good reference by most sites--and has never been argued successfully otherwise. Jeremy112233 (talk) 03:06, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "IMDB is considered a good reference"? Not by Wikipedia. It's fine as an external link but should not be used as a reference. See WP:IMDB.
    As for this specific request, the URL specified is a forum site, and forums are not considered reliable sources for use as references in articles. See WP:RS, which states quite clearly in boldface: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person. Therefore this request is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:13, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    UKMIX page

    I would like to request that www.ukmix.org/forums/viewtopic.php?p=3755535 be unblocked so that the music sales it mentions can be used in the list of best-selling singles worldwide.

    It is useful as a temporary or placeholder reference for UK single sales for which a more reliable link cannot be found:

    I remember I recorded the Official Beyoncé Top 20 on MTV Hits a few weeks ago. Sorry I couldn't record the whole show though
    Here's what they said:
    Beautiful Liar : 410,000
    Best Thing I Never Had : 410,000 (over 450,000 now)
    Sweet Dreams : 420,000
    Crazy in Love : 460,000
    Halo : 560,000
    Single Ladies (Put a Ring on It) : 620,000 (already updated)
    Telephone : 650,000
    If I Were A Boy : 680,000 (already updated)

    The preceding sales data should be here in the original and official list that appears on MTV.co.uk. However, the sales listed in that link happen to be outdated, and the newer data can only be found at sites like the forum link above.

    Please unblock the first web page so we can include this much-needed data in the aforementioned best-selling singles list.--Mauri96 (talk) 22:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Kooga-Rugby.com

    This is the homepage of the Rugby League and Rugby Union Brand Kooga. It is news and sale page for Kooga. Please can it be whitelisted so that reference material can be used from the website on the Wiki page about the Brand. ManWithTooMuchTime (talk) 12:44, 4 July 2012 (UTC)ManWithTooMuchTime 13:44 GMT[reply]

    First, the page already contains the "official" website kooga.com.au. Secondly, its wholly a sales-only site, so it fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. I'm not convinced how this could be used as as a citation.--Hu12 (talk) 16:27, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.emptynosesyndrome.org/what_is_ens.php#symptoms

    This is the symptoms page of the Empty Nose Syndrome Association, a nonprofit, public charity that tries to raise awareness about ENS. The link is needed in the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empty_nose_syndrome, because the article doesn’t mention all symptoms. Also, the symptoms page has an audio of Dr. Kern’s presentation about ENS at a nose conference, which is very revealing. I have already requested the removal of the whole site from the blacklist, and I hope it will be granted as well. There it is explained why the site was blacklisted in the first place. Thanks. Gewell (talk) 16:25, 6 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • This page is for requests to whitelist one or a few specific named pages from a blocked site. I see you have already requesed the removal of the whole site, and I am going to no decline this request without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 17:00, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Uncensored Interviews interview with Poni Hoax

    I would like this particular URL to be unblocked so that I can cite it on the Poni Hoax page. This link contains 100% unique VIDEO interviews that cannot be found on any other website. (After 6 hours of research for an important project I should know...). The article on Poni Hoax is a stub, and I regularly contributed to the article (I made an account since, but my IP address is the newest one as of this post) because I know alot about the band, and it appears that no one else is willing to post any other information on them. These collections of interviews help improve the quality of an article on a band that's on Rock Band 3 (a very popular music game) and anyone who wishes to find out anything about them should be able to verify the sources I used in the article. If they can't, they could delete important, valid, unique information (especially that pertaining to their 3rd album still in the planning stages) that has the potential to be viewed by a great quantity of people. Sageamagoo (talk) 01:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • As you have only a small contribution history, I will not be able to progress this request without backup from another user or an appropriate WikiProject. no Declined for now, feel free to relist with that support. Stifle (talk) 16:31, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    bit.ly/wlafghan2

    bit.ly: 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

    • bit.ly/wlafghan2

    I would like this link to be whitelisted, please, for use as a source in en:Bradley Manning. It is referred to in a tweet by WikiLeaks, and that tweet is used as a source in the article for a key date. But when I link to it, the article can't be saved because bit.ly is on the blacklist. Many thanks, SlimVirgin (talk) 04:21, 7 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    That URL shortener url redirects to http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/06/afghan-airstrike-video-goes-down-the-memory-hole/. Is there any reason you cannot use that directly as your source? Anomie⚔ 11:13, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hi, I'm quoting a tweet from WikiLeaks in a footnote, and I'd like to quote it exactly for the sake of precision, because the date and contents of the tweet are important. But because this is on the blacklist, I'm not able to reproduce the tweet the way it was posted. SlimVirgin (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would it be an option to quote it with 'nowiki' tags on the link? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:29, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I could do that, or I could leave it as I have it now (see below). It's just that looks a bit odd and unnecessary (and would still require an invisible note explaining about the blacklist, which I currently have too), and especially odd in an article about freedom of information. Mind you, I might be the only one who ever notices it -- I probably shouldn't assume that readers pore through every footnote. But the point is that I'm quoting Julian Assange, and it would be nice to quote precisely what he wrote, as he wrote it. The footnote is as follows:

    For the WikiLeaks tweet, see "Have encrypted videos ...", Twitter, January 8, 2010, accessed April 6, 2012. The tweet said: "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians ... bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/"

    SlimVirgin (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I recommend quoting the link using 'nowiki' tags, and then within the quote the actual URL that it redirects to should be cited with a 'ref' tag. That way readers can see the original quotation and look at the reference to see the original source mentioned in the quotation. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined, no real reason to use the shortened URL rather than the full one. Stifle (talk) 16:23, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for letting me know about this, Stifle. Can you say why this one link can't be whitelisted? It's in a quotation, so I would like to reproduce it exactly as it was posted on Twitter -- no nowiki, no alternative URLs, just exactly the way it first appeared. The reason I'm requesting this is that it pertains to a key point in the sequence of events. Also, in an article about freedom of information, it looks extremely odd that I'm not allowed to reproduce one of the links. SlimVirgin (talk) 18:27, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • It doesn't present a special reason when you can place the link in <nowiki> tags (or, indeed, as you are a sysop, whitelist it yourself). Stifle (talk) 19:03, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Am I allowed to whitelist it for articles I'm involved in editing? The issue for me is that it's a quotation about a key issue, and I would like to reproduce it precisely. If there's a good reason for not whitelisting the link (a better reason than needing to quote it), fair enough, but no one has said what the problem is. Can you say what it is? SlimVirgin (talk) 20:40, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Two comments:
    • We blacklist link shorteners since they are sometimes used to bypass the blacklist.
    • My own opinion: I see no reason not to whitelist the specific "bit.ly/wlafghan2" link in this case.
    --A. B. (talk • contribs)
    And as I suggested earlier, the best solution is not to white-list anything, but simply use the quote as is, with the actual link hyperlinked to the displayed bit.ly link. That way readers will see the original quote, but if they click on the link they will go to the correct place.
    As to whitelisting something yourself, I'd say because we are required to log all additions, and each log entry must point to a discussion justifying the addition, if you can point to such a justifying discussion then there's no problem with an WP:INVOLVED admin whitelisting something, because any other admin could do the same. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry, I didn't understand your response, Amatulic (about using the quote as is with the actual link hyperlinked to the bit.ly link). If you mean I should substitute the URL, yes, I could do that, but then I've fiddled with a quotation.
    This may seem like a minor issue, so my apologies. But it is a quotation from Julian Assange, and it speaks to the precise time he obtained a certain video. I would therefore like to reproduce that quotation exactly as he posted it. So far, no one has explained why the link bit.ly/wlafghan2 is problematic. I understand the problem with shortened URLs in general, but it's just this one that I'm asking to be allowed to reproduce. If that particular link isn't a problem, it should be allowed.
    Again, my apologies for banging on about what must seem like a very minor thing. SlimVirgin (talk)
    OK, maybe an example is in order. Here's the full quotation, with all links working, and no whitelisting needed:
    "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians http://bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/"
    The bit.ly link displays as it should, but if you hover your mouse over it or click on it, you'll see that it goes to the actual source. This way, you aren't modifying the original quotation, you're just using some wiki markup to hyperlink some terms. The final URL in the quotation is hyperlinked by default automatically, but the bit.ly link needs to have its default behavior changed, that's all. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:16, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    But that would involve changing the quote. I would like to quote Assange precisely; that is, I want to reproduce what he wrote. Here it is. Is there any reason that quoting this precisely would be problematic? If I change it in any way, I am going to have to add an explanatory note to the footnote about the spam blacklist, and it's just annoying to have to do that. Also, it gives the impression to the uninformed that Assange has somehow used links that needed to be blacklisted. SlimVirgin (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    When I click that link I see "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians http://bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/", no hyperlinks at all. So why not quote exactly that in the article, since that seems to be precisely what Assange tweeted. Anomie⚔ 23:57, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree with Anomie, if you don't want to "change the quote" to include hyperlinks, then don't include any hyperlinks; that is, don't even enable the default hyperlinking performed by Wikipedia's page rendering engine. I claim also that you aren't changing the quotation by hyperlinking things in it. That sort of thing is routinely done, particularly for internal wikilinks of certain terms in quotations. All that really matters is the words (the ones that appear if you print the article) are unchanged. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:14, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not adding a hyperlink, though I am also not adding nowiki. I am copying and pasting the words of this tweet, exactly as they appear, which means it links by default, as it did on Twitter, i.e. as it did in the original quote. But when I try to save the article, I'm told I can't because of the spamlist. Therefore, I have come here to ask that that link (just that one) be whitelisted, so that I can save my edit. Rather than continuing to tell me there's no need to add this link (there is never a need), can someone please explain what would be problematic about reproducing this particular link? We have a situation here where this list is interfering with content and with accuracy. SlimVirgin (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Slimvirgin, here is what he tweeted: "Have encrypted videos of US bomb strikes on civilians http://bit.ly/wlafghan2 we need super computer time http://ljsf.org/". And that is exactly what you can quote. For me, in that tweet you show us (this tweet), the two hyperlinks are not working, so if you capture the whole sentence in nowikis then you are NOT changing the quote (in fact, Julian Assange type the characters out of the sentence, that is what he wrote, software is converting it to hyperlinks.
    I have accurately quoted him, and hence, I don't see a reason to whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner Interview with Matt Noveskey

    Please add the following page: 1. examiner.com/article/matt-noveskey-talks-life-outside-blue-october 2. For this article: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matt_Noveskey 3. It is useful because it is an interview with the subject of the article which contains relevant information to the article, and is not spam and should not be black listed. 4. I understand that www.examiner.com is on the black list for spam (not sure why) but this specific page is not spam. Thanks 207.98.141.6 (talk) 14:26, 8 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please obtain the support of an established user or WikiProject. no Declined without prejudice. Stifle (talk) 16:46, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Request for edit on Denver

    ERROR! Link blocked; could not save page! Had to remove link summary! Please ensure that this page is exempted from the filter! Attempted to make legitimate edit to Denver and the associated talk page, using an Examiner reference. Since my attempted edits were filtered, I am hosting my edits as text documents here (attempted page edit) and here (attempted talk page edit to bottom section of page). Copy and paste the text into the appropriate places to generate a diff so you can see the edit. Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 23:39, 26 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    UPDATE: I have made an edit to Denver and the respective talk page. The reference was of course blocked, so I ask that this request still be looked into. I also had to modify the header since the spam filter is now being triggered when it was not triggered before. Please ensure that this page is exempted from the filter! Thanks. 75.53.218.81 (talk) 21:28, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    One way that you could do it is to omit the http — if you're trying to place a link to http://www.example.com and the system blocks you, simply write www.example.com and the software won't realise that it's a link, so it won't try to block you. Nyttend (talk) 02:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just to reinstate the data. We are talking about:

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Bad 25 Release Details PDF

    Particular URL is for a official document linked to by the MJ Online Team (The Michael Jackson Estate) HERE. At this point in time this is the only official source. This is to be used as a citation on Bad 25 until a better source is found.

    www.examiner.com/martial-arts-in-san-francisco/molly-hale-an-incredible-martial-artist-making-a-difference

    Requesting the whitelist status of the examiner.com article which would allow people to acknowledge Molly Hale's ability to do Aikido despite that she was deemed a paralytic from the neck down after her accident. It could also help to inspire people who suffer similar issues. The article which would benefit Moment by Moment: The Healing Journey of Molly Hale (film) 99.24.220.45 (talk) 04:29, 28 March 2012 (UTC)june flowerchild[reply]

    pantheon.org

    Creating mythology articles for Wikipedia for example Alitha (Judiac Mythology), and I would like pantheon.org/articles/a/alitha.html. Unsure why the website is blocked.--Mjs1991 (talk) 03:23, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It was added after this discussion, due to concerns that it contained unreliable information. Anomie⚔ 05:36, 27 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, website blocked as unreliable/user-generated content; therefore any information on this site ought to be available elsewhere. It would be OK for external linking (and there's a whitelist exception for the Encyclopedia Mythica article, but it isn't OK to use as a reference. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:00, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Page; suite101.com interview with DJ Paul Rudd

    I am in the process of constructing an article about Paul Rudd (DJ). I would like to cite an interview of him on suite101.com as a reference. /article/interview-with-dj-paul-rudd-sound-of-london-a402049#ixzz1yM3SlWUB. I appreciate requests to unblock this site are frequently denied, but this appears to be a legitimate interview. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 08:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Anyone, please. Daicaregos (talk) 20:04, 1 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still hoping for a response here. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 10:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Could someone take a look at this please. Thanks, Daicaregos (talk) 07:20, 14 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for your patience. I see about 1 million links to non-suite101.com interviews with DJ Paul Rudd, so I am hesitant to whitelist a link to a site that is blacklisted globally (not just on en-Wikipedia) because of too much past abuse.[11] ~Amatulić (talk) 16:09, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    The vast majority of those links relate to Paul Rudd, the American actor. The suite101 interview is with the English DJ of the same name. But thanks anyway for looking at the request. Daicaregos (talk) 11:00, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Traditio-ru.org

    I would like Traditio site to be unblocked, due to the fact that its Russian site and had issues with Russian Wikipedia in the past, but not anymore. It have nothing against the English Wikipedia, or any other Wikipedias for that matter, except for maybe Russian, that as mentioned was in the past in 2007. Since that year, the site have improved, and in order for it to be even more improved Wikipedia and Traditio should work together, and all of the users there agreed with it. Not to mention, there are users that joined on both Russian and English Wikipedias and Traditio as well, and treat both sites with respect. Again, as said before, we need to work together, and by blocking a specific site we only create divisions between the Russian people. Traditio promises that they will not agitate against Wikipedia, and I seen all by myself that it have been minimized. So, I hope people will understand that blocking will result into more division of users, noty to mention, some people might even want to use this site for some projects. I for example, like both sites, and I know some users that migh agree with me here.

    Sincerely Wikipedia/Traditio user,

    --Mishae (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    S. :meta:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2012-04#traditio.ru / traditio-ru.org --DR (talk) 20:21, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This page is to request that one or a few specific named pages from a blocked website be permitted. Requests for full removal need to go at m:Talk:Spam blacklist. I'll leave this open for a short while in case the requester wishes to specify some pages; otherwise it will be closed with no action. Stifle (talk) 16:26, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • So, does it mean that you will unblock the site or it means that you wont? I would like the whole site to be unblocked, as I mentioned above. I don't undertand what do you mean by "specifying some pages"?--Mishae (talk) 17:49, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • It means I won't, because you've requested in the wrong place and I don't have the access to unblock it. If you only wanted a few specific pages from that site unblocked, I would have the power to do so. I don't have the power to unblock the entire site, and to request that you would need to go to the other page I linked just above. Stifle (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
          • Well, they refused to unblock it back then, so another Wikipedian told me to come here. O.K. Can you unblock at least the main page?--Mishae (talk) 18:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please specify the exact URL you want unblocked. Stifle (talk) 19:01, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
              • How do I do it, if I can't even put the home page here?!--Mishae (talk) 19:54, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Like this?:

    traditio-ru.org/wiki/%D0%97%D0%B0%D0%B3%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D1%81%D1%82%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%86%D0%B0.htm

    That page has zero content; in fact it says (tranlsated to English) "is currently no text in this page."
    When making white-listing requests you must tell us two things: (1) the specific URL you want white-listed (you have done that), and (2) the reason you want it white-listed; that is, in what article you intend to use the link.
    There is no reason for us to white-list a page that has no content. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:48, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Agree with Amatulic. That link leads to traditio-ru.org/wiki/Заглавная_страница.htm, a non existent page. In addition to the reasoning explained to you here, traditio-ru.org is Non-English-language content and a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 16:00, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, your reasoning beat me, but it shouldn't have been blacklisted in the first place just because somebody on Russian Wikipedia was unhappy with them. Keep in mind they are former Wikipedians, that didn't understood the project, although with time and with joint effort we can succeed. Question: Are any of you are friends of DR or Saint Johann?--Mishae (talk) 02:20, 15 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Parker examiner page

    www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-and-big-6-pesticide-corporations-funding-effort-to-stop-gmo-labeling

    BTW: The policy of not allowing users to post these URLs seems insanely restrictive to me. Like, I'm still allowed to write an unsourced sentence that says whatever I want... but here I have a well-sourced article that I want to cite, and I just can't because it's automatically spam? I understand that someone stands to profit from the link... but this is true of larger sources as well. Some of which are actually less trustworthy. groupuscule (talk) 21:07, 1 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Have you read /Common requests, which details the major issues with this site? Stifle (talk) 17:05, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes. Have you read my response, which addresses the arguments contained therein? The NYT and any other news source profits from visitors to its pages. If profit motive invalidates a source, then only blogs should be allowed. I'm really frustrated that I'm not allowed to cite a clearly well-researched news article for over a month after I try to edit it in, and that barriers to the free flow of information are being built into the underlying texture of Wikipedia. groupuscule (talk) 19:32, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The difference is, there is no incentive to spam a link to a NYT article for profit, whereas the entire business model of examiner.com is set up to encourage link spamming activity. Examiner.com is blacklisted because it has amply demonstrated in the past that it is a magnet for link spamming.
    Also, most requests for whitelisting links to examiner.com are unnecessary because alternative sources exist for similar information. For example:
    Based on what I can find, several other sources refer to the beyondpesticides article, and I wouldn't be surprised if the author of that examiner.com article merely summarized it, because that appears to be the source of the quotations used in the article. Therefore, this request is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:20, 12 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Unblock Examiner.com

    I have been working on List of Mitt Romney presidential campaign endorsements, 2012 and I found two supporters but I need the site in order to prove that there is evidence of support.Suite1408 (talk) 15:45, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Please read /Common requests.
    This page is for requesting white-listing of specific URLs, not whole web sites. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Ardis Chedore Article with Book references

    Ardischedore (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)-Ardis-Ardischedore (talk) 13:36, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Article does not exist. Link is to "Ardis's Store" which is a Link normally to be avoided and fails Wikipedias specific requirements of our External Links policy, Verifiability Policy and Reliable Source guidelines. Wikipedia is not a vehicle for advertising. Equally Wikipedia is not a place to to promote Ardis Chedore. It also appears your account is being used for promotion of a person, with a username that implies that this has been done by that person. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 22:06, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    fluoridealert.org

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

    fluoridealert.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

    • Article: Paul Connett, PhD (2012-09-15). [www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/ "50 Reasons to Oppose Fluoridation"]. Fluoride Action Network. Retrieved 2012-09-21. {{cite web}}: Check |url= value (help) This resource is extensively footnoted.
    • Reason: I attempted to add this citation to Further reading. It is a very well-footnoted article citing fifty succinct objections to water fluoridation, most of which are, inexplicably, not mentioned in the article itself. My intention was to add this citation (with {{Cite web}}, verbatim as in the Article clause above), and later, time permitting, do some copyedit in Statements against to summarise some representative, missing objections (with good footnotes from the article). If I get hit by a bus, it would help someone else to do the same. The article is published on several other sites, but this one seems to be the best quality and most recently updated.
    It seems as though much of the actual controversy has been edited out of Water fluoridation controversy, an article purporting to be a summary of the controversy itself. Reading 50 Reasons, then Water fluoridation controversy shows the latter to be somewhat lopsided, or at least paltry in its treatment of the controversy. I was making reference to Wikipedia in the first instance to find certain objections to water fluoridation which I had heard discussed on NPR, but was surprised to find zero mention of them. My feeling is that Wikipedia should not fail with an omission like this. This fluoridealert.org article recalled what I thought was missing, and more.
    For my immediate purposes, I need only the article cited. The mere addition of this citation would make a large incremental improvement to the article with a small, brief effort.
    That said, I see no good reason to block fluoridealert.org as a whole. It is a well-composed site, and perhaps ought to be added into External links, though I am admittedly less familiar with current policy on External link sections.
    Thank you for your attention in this matter,
    -SM 07:35, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Blocked due to abuse and failing as a reliable source. Seems there are plenty of alternatives to choose from avaliable.--Hu12 (talk) 19:25, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    How does it fail as a reliable source? Although it appears quite reliable as a source on the topic of fluoridation itself, remember that it need only be a reliable source on the topic of fluoridation controversy. Also, the link abuse only cites WP:EL, and doesn't substantiate a failure of WP:RS. Given the poor treatment of the opposed viewpoint, I wonder what has really been going on here in this article. The lopsidedness of this article is far worse an outcome than any alledged dammage by spam, which I now see as doubtful. -SM 21:12, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Advocacy sites are rarely accepted as reliable sources for obvious reasons of bias. As Hu12 noted, there are plenty of sources available that easily pass WP:RS.  Not done OhNoitsJamie Talk 21:33, 21 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Advocacy sites are cited all over Wikipedia, including notably the ADA with respect to water floridation. The assertion, rarely accepted as reliable sources doesn't hold up. It really doesn't hold up to say that an advocacy site is not reliable with respect to its own participation in a controversy. Finally, the site is publishing a paper, its own reliability extends only to whether it has accurately done so. Where is the evidence of unreliability?
    This ban is only serving to reinforce clear, deliberate bias, not to improve the encyclopedia. To read Water fluoridation controversy, one would conclude that this is a dated, red-scare issue without current scientific relevance. This is clearly false. This is a clear bias fail for Wikipedia. Please undo this.
    -SM 00:24, 22 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "This ban is only serving to reinforce clear, deliberate bias...clear bias fail for Wikipedia."
    Attempting to achieve whitelisting by tossing unfounded accusations at others is unacceptable, particularly when clear evidence of abuse and sockpupetry have been provided to you. Understand that spamming and sockpuppetry are prohibited under official Wikipedia policy of long standing. Closing as Vexatious no Declined--Hu12 (talk) 01:51, 22 September 2012 (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.

    Two Village Residents in Swedish Lapland, Where The Train Stops

    Reason: An interesting article about a place in Sweden which we have an article about. Not much else in English can be found on the web. --BIL (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • This was blacklisted for spamming. Indications are that it is a self-written site and isn't very reliable. I will leave this open for another while during which time you can convince me not to deny the request. Stifle (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • User was notified of reply and has been editing since; no response =  Denied Stifle (talk) 20:42, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

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

    Archiving talk page content that happens to mention examiner.com

    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

    Just trying to move the section "Controversy RE deranking of GLBT books / #amazonfail" from Talk:Amazon.com to Talk:Amazon.com/Archive 1 and the spam filter is blocking me despite trying to obfuscate the link. -- Beland (talk) 06:03, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I cannot un-delete the section from Talk:Amazon.com after the archiving failed, also due to the spam filter. -- Beland (talk) 06:08, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had something similar yesterday - I removed a working link, but still was not able to save. Is there something changed in the software, does it hook in a wrong place? Beland, I presume that you 'took off the 'http://' from the link in your first post to make it savable? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:16, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I had to do this and this, because I was not allowed to save the page, even after changing the links. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:19, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    And how was this edit possible, we have '\bgoogle\..*?\/url\?' on the global blacklist, which MUST catch that link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:21, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [12] The problem was search.twitter.com, not examiner.com. MER-C 06:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Re the google.de edit, it appears that MediaWiki interpreted the text "http://www.google.de/url?" as a link to "http://www.google.de/url" followed by a question mark, rather than as a link to http://www.google.de/url?. The code that does this is in makeFreeExternalLink in parser/Parser.php, it basically assumes that certain punctuation at the end of a bare url is not part of the url. Since the blacklist entry requires the '?' in the url, it didn't match. Anomie⚔ 12:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, curious that I then could not save the thread, but anyways, it has been resolved. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:42, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It was probably picking up the "link" in the edit summary when you edited the section ("/* http://www.google.de/url? */"); the edit summaries are just added verbatim to the text to check against the blacklist, without any sort of parsing. Anomie⚔ 19:56, 22 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh my, I forgot about that. I should have adapted the edit summary. I hope however that the point that the original post could be saved is not propagating, I still don't know why the original post did save while my edit of it was blocked - I did not change anything in the URL. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Source from justjaredjr.com

    I triggered a spam filter. I want to add an image source to File:Keke-keke-palmer-7228404-816-1222.jpg. The uploader's source appears to to be a copy of that page. The text I wanted to append to "Source =" is <br />[http://www.justjaredjr.com/photo-gallery/222671/keke-palmer-gray-gorgeous-05/ justjaredjr.com: More original source] This may be moot, seems likely a copyright vio. Jim1138 (talk) 20:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    I just enclosed it with <nowiki>, so presumably problem solved. Jim1138 (talk) 20:29, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fort-kochi.com

    This site is blacklisted because www.kochi.com, quite another website, is on the spam-blacklist. So please put www.fort-kochi.com on the whitelist. www.fort-kochi.com is a private non-commercial website which is of value for tourists visiting Fort Kochi, India. A link is to be placed at Fort Kochi.

    Request: Unblacklist: The argument is obviously true, and is not nearly connected with Kochi.com.Jeremy112233 (talk) 02:53, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Defer to Global blacklist. Not blacklisted here; it is more appropriate for this to be handled on the meta blacklist. The regex on meta, \bkochi\.(com|in|mobi)\b should be changed to (?<=//|\.)kochi\.(com|in|mobi)\b to allow for unrelated URLs containing 'kochi'. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Source from Examiner.com

    I was editing the article "Lifehouse (band)" and tried to add the following citation after ""Hanging by a Moment" was the third song in chart history to be named the "No. 1 Song of the Year" on the Billboard Hot 100 despite not having reached No. 1 on any weekly Billboard Hot 100 survey (after Sam the Sham & The Pharaohs' "Wooly Bully" in 1965 and Faith Hill's "Breathe" in 2000).". The citation that triggered the filter was this: <ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.examiner.com/article/examining-lifehouse-an-exclusive-interview-with-rick-woolstenhulme-jr|title=Examining Lifehouse: an exclusive interview with Rick Woolstenhulme Jr. - Orlando rock music | Examiner.com|last=Melchor|first=Michael|publisher=Examiner.com|accessdate=2012-08-05}}</ref>

    I think the link not only serves to verify that but the rest of the article, an interview with one of the bandmembers, is full of information for the article (as well as citations). Currently, the "Lifehouse (band)" and its band members' articles are at a loss for citations. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 18:49, 4 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Pardon my non-standard formatting and if I haven't addressed all criteria. I'm sort of lost by this page. --Qwerty Binary (talk) 11:26, 5 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    No; but, now have I, and I should probably withdraw this request. I duly note the problems with the Examiner.com as a source. Thanks! --Qwerty Binary (talk) 12:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn--Hu12 (talk) 16:39, 14 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Dying Scene

    Please add the following page. This specific interview with a band member of La Dispute is useful for: highlighting on the La Dispute page how the band got their band name. Highlighting the studio techniques they used for recording Wildlife. www.dyingscene.com/news/interview-jordan-dreyer-la-dispute-discusses-touring-wildlife-and-homemade-instruments/ Thank You Jonjonjohny (talk) 12:15, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been 30 days since I posted this on the noticeboard is there anyone who can look at my request? Jonjonjohny (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Still hoping for a response here. Thanks, Jonjonjohny (talk) 16:59, 3 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I figured that because it uses an interview with the band it's reliability was much better. Jonjonjohny (talk) 23:27, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Here's a non blacklisted copy; http://www.idioteq.com/la-dispute-frontman-interviewed-by-dying-scene/
    --Hu12 (talk) 23:34, 10 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for your help. Jonjonjohny (talk) 07:42, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    www.opposingviews.com/i/society/gay-issues/did-airman-randy-phillips-err-posting-video-coming-out-dad

    I'd like to use this link on the entry for Randy Phillips as evidence of web-based discussion/criticism about his activity. It would amplify two citations in which journalists express such criticism. In no way critical, but it appears a valid social-media style discussion of social media behavior. I guess I am citing it as an example rather than a source as such. Thanks. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 16:03, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

     Request withdrawn[13]--Hu12 (talk) 14:53, 19 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Hi,

    I've create a page misnamed "[Editing ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36]"instead of [ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36]. This new page was marked for deletion yesterday. I've explained the difference between SC 34 page and this new SC36 to the editor. After the editor unmarked the page for deletion, it was move to WP:BLACKLIST. If there is an offending link, could you please advice me and move back the page to WHITELIST so that I can continue with edition. Thanks. --108.161.117.248 (talk) 01:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Here is the message that I received from the editor who first marked the page for deletion:

    I actually noticed that they were different articles, so I undid my nomintation for speedy deletion. However, I tried to move the page myself and discovered that the title was on our WP:BLACKLIST. I'm not an admin, so I can't override it. I'm not quite sure why, but you can ask someone to change the page title at WP:RM. Funnyfarmofdoom (talk to me) 21:55, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

    I managed to move the page to ISO/IEC JTC1/SC36 without any problem. Even though I'm an admin, I am not exempt from being blocked from inserting something that's blacklisted.
    As a further test, I copied the entire article content to Wikipedia:Sandbox which would also trigger the blacklist. Nothing, no error. I'm not sure what caused the problem you experienced, but if it happens again, please drop me a note on my talk page and I'll investigate. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:49, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Maybe the title blacklist? (which admins can override).. --Versageek 02:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Hmm, I can't see anything on Wikipedia:Titleblacklist that would trigger on that title. But then it's almost humanly impossible to scan that thing with a mental regex. As the OP said, there's already another article with a very similar title (different only by a digit in it).
    Even if admins can override it, wouldn't I get some sort of warning? ~Amatulić (talk) 05:48, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The problem is the following line in MediaWiki:Titleblacklist:
    .*\p{Lu}(\P{L}*\p{Lu}){9}.* <casesensitive | moveonly>  # Disallows moves with more than nine consecutive capital letters
    That will match any title that has 10 or more uppercase letters in a row without any intervening lowercase letters, but will block moves only and not page creations. Note that admins (and accountcreators) can override the title blacklist, just not the spam blacklist. Anomie⚔ 16:44, 7 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Proposed changes to the way this page is constructed

    • It would be helpful if we could "watch" just the section associated with our request using the template/subpage mechanism that DYK and GAN use, for example. Woz2 (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I support Woz2's suggestion. An easy way to do that would be similar to how Articles for Deletion discussions are separate, but listed on a group page for easy ways to find them. Spidey104 14:39, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't support this, although I don't oppose either. I think this suggestion is more practical for things like WP:AFD or WP:SPI, where you have discussion among several participants. Here, there's really no discussion, just a request by one person and an answer by an admin. Also, we wouldn't want to structure this page on a schedule like AFD either, since there are comparatively few admins participating here and some requests remain open for months. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Question

    Are the requests on this page need every time a formal closure? Armbrust, B.Ed. WrestleMania XXVIII The Undertaker 20–0 05:57, 5 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

    Just an icon with the result is sufficient for most cases. This page is prone to bad faith requests and sometimes a little more force is necessary to shut spammers up. MER-C 10:29, 14 August 2012 (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)

    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=515696906"