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 Stifle (talk | contribs) at 19:24, 5 July 2013 (→‎Kate Garvey speaker bio at personal assistant conference). 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|563012686#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 (web pages to unblock)


    helium.com on Diane Downs

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

    • helium.com/items/2055807-looking-at-the-story-of-the-diane-downs-tragedy

    Please kindly consider adding page two of this article to Diane Downs article. I understand the reasons why www.helium.com is currently blacklisted. But can you please kindly consider looking at this request. The Diane Downs article does not mention the whereabouts of the two surviving Downs children, who were adopted by the family of one of the prosecutors involved in the case: Christie and Stephen (Danny). I fully understand there are privacy issues involved since they are still living and due to the sensitive nature of the Downs case. This link is to cite their current wherabouts. But, the Helium article that is blacklisted briefly mentions that they went on to lead successful lives. The former became a social worker while the latter managed to overcome his disability and has developed a skill with computers. The information is confirmed by a Yahoo answers web page dating back to 2011 (an unreliable source) which cites a 20/20 television show.

    Now, I can confirm that I have no relationship whatsoever with either www.helium.com or any of the people involved in the Downs case. I was born in 1991 in Malaysia and currently live in New Zealand. I am only a reader who came across that article while browsing Wikipedia. I feel personally that it would be reassuring for browsers to at least know that the victims have managed to overcome their past trauma and are thriving. If there was a more appropriate and reliable source, I would have used it in the article but this helium article seems to be one of the few extant sources on that topic. I know this case may sound sensitive, but can you please kindly consider my request. Whatever your decision, I will respect it and not contest the issue anymore. Thankyou. Andykatib 10:13, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    empowernetwork.com on Baltic sea anomaly

    empowernetwork.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

    • empowernetwork.com/pmatjaz/blog/ufo-sightings-baltic-sea-ufo

    Request single page to be added to Baltic Sea UFO, it is interesting source of information about other possible explanations for Baltic sea anomaly. Matjaz 15 May 2013

    Several articles at www.cbronline.com/news/

    • www.cbronline.com/news/phoenix_technologies_acquire_dip_research
    • www.cbronline.com/news/digital_research_shows_off_real_time_flexos_386
    • www.cbronline.com/news/digital_research_launches_flexos_286_real_time_manufacturing_operating_system

    I would like to use these articles as references in various WP articles like FlexOS, Atari Portfolio, Ian Cullimore.

    This site appears to be a long-standing news site with staff editors etc. In none of the cases I looked up information there over the years I could find any kind of SPAM, so perhaps it would be easier to whitelist everything under:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/

    Please investigate and consider my suggestion. Thanks. (Of course, I have no affiliation of any kind with that site.) --Matthiaspaul (talk) 13:50, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As in previous requests, I think the specific links may be suitable for whitelisting. This site, and many other sites of the same owner, were blatantly spammed for a long time by the site owners, and I think that might still be needed to be kept under control. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:58, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Regarding cbronline, it's good to keep it under control. However, in the case of the articles in question I either could not find this particular information online elsewhere or only mixed with other partially incorrect information which I therefore did not want to use as a reference.
    BTW. Thanks for fixing ([1]) the format of the links above. This wasn't explained in the green box at the start of this page and since the links there were not working (they were pointing to no longer valid section headers), I went straight to the bottom of this section (as requested in the intro) without reading the explanations given at the top of this section... ;-) I have meanwhile fixed ([2]) the transcluded template so that editors will no longer run into the same pitfall and thereby create unneccesary work.
    --Matthiaspaul (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.kavkazcenter.com/eng/content/2006/07/18/5002.shtml

    Kavkaz Center seems to be blocked. I just need to be able to cite to the one news article above. There was a paragraph in Yvonne Ridley's page that was removed a couple of years ago under BLP because the cite for the quote wasn't provided. Having tracked it down, I'd like to be able to use it as the cite. AFAIK, the article is not published elsewhere on the internet. Thanks. Bromley86 (talk) 23:45, 26 May 2013 (UTC) I should have mentioned that the article is written by Ridley herself.Bromley86 (talk) 08:27, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This seems very biased and I am not convinced it is a reliable source. I'll leave open for a while for refutation purposes but am inclined to reject. Stifle (talk) 19:48, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for replying Stifle. Not sure what you mean by biased. It's a faithful reproduction (published 6 days after first publication & fully accredited) of an article she personally wrote in a now-defunct magazine (DailyMuslims.com). I've searched using paragraphs from it and found plenty of web-board confirmations that it originally came from the Daily Muslims article. The Daily Muslims was cited in an earlier version of the WP page, before the DM site went down.
    I don't agree with the views, but it does confirm a couple of statements in her bio, namely "Ridley wrote an article referring to Basayev by the Muslim honorific shaheed, meaning "martyr"" and "She went on to refer to Basayev as leader of "an admirable struggle to bring independence to Chechnya"." Aside from this, we currently have a partial confirmation of the first quote from a Guardian piece, but it lacks any context; we currently have no other confirmation of the second quote. AFAIK, the Daily Muslims was a reasonably reliable source before it shut down, certainly when articles she's written are used to confirm her views; she's been a proper journalist, written a couple of books and been a candidate in elections (with a decent share of the vote). As mentioned, earlier version of the WP page used to link directly to the Daily Muslims article, but when that link died a fact tag was added and, without support being available, the paragraph was later removed. Bromley86 (talk) 15:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/pskw-helps-pharmacies-physicians-connect-with-patients

    I am requesting that this particular article examiner.com/article/pskw-helps-pharmacies-physicians-connect-with-patients be whitelisted for the Wikipedia page I am creating about PSKW. This Examiner article is the only one in which this has been covered outside medical publications and is more relevant to the regular reader. The writer, Robert Janis, is a widely read and well published writer, who currently writes for examiner.com. Thank You.VirtualCatNZ (talk) 08:12, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What's so special about that article that it must be used instead of other similar (and even more detailed) non-medical articles that aren't blacklisted? See http://dividendkings.com/2013/04/15/pharmaceutical-companies-turn-to-pskw-to-inspire-customer-loyalty/ or perhaps http://www.digitaljournal.com/pr/339328 for example. Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason, and its coverage of this topic is apparently not the only coverage that exists outside of medical publications. ~Amatulić (talk) 11:04, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks Amatulic, I will try an use the first one as the second is the straight press release, I couldn't find the first for looking, so thanks again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VirtualCatNZ (talk • contribs) 00:21, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn, I guess. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:09, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com link listing "Rally for Sanity Minnesota" speaker roster

    The specific link of the page, or pages, which you would like to use:
    www.examiner.com/article/the-twin-cities-response-to-the-rally-to-restore-sanity
    The reason(s) why links to the site should be allowed, and would benefit Wikipedia:
    The link is not being submitted by the author of the news article, so is not promotional. It is the only 3rd party news source providing the actual speaker roster for this satellite rally of Jon Stewart's Rally to Restore Sanity, held October 30, 2010, at the Minnesota State Capitol. (The other news sources only focused on the "crashing" of the Rally for Sanity by the third party candidate for Governor to give a campaign speech.) Hence the link provides only informational confirmation of one of the listed practices (an address to the Rally entitled "Be Sane — be VERY Sane!") of the organization in the below WP article. The WP article's notability is conferred by other 3rd party secondary sources (Harvard, Star-Tribune, etc.), but this news article is additionally useful to validate the existence of one of the specific events/practices reflecting the espoused philosophy of the organization being described in the WP article.
    The WP article or articles on which the links would be used:
    The Circle of Reason
    WP editor's statement to admin concerning request: I've read the Common Requests site's general rationale for blacklisting examiner.com, and agree with the general blacklist because examiner.com stringers are paid by their number of news or editorial articles, and their content isn't editorially vetted. However, I'd submit that this particular news article's being the only 3rd party source providing the informational content of the Rally's roster of speakers (the type of content that is factual and doesn't require editorial vetting), and its being the only news source that specifically confirms that a speech by the WP article's organization was indeed on the Rally event's roster, is a sufficient rationale to whitelist this one link. The WP article's organization also has no affiliation with the author of the news article being requested for whitelisting. Thx for considering the request, -- Fhburton (talk) 22:27, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    uk.superiorpapers.com

    I'm editing the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ALWD_Citation_Manual page and would like to link to this article written by uk.superiorpapers.com: uk.superiorpapers.com/articles/alwd-a-practical-legal-citation-system. The site is a commercial site but has one of the best ALWD citation guide I've seen online: 1.) the article actually uses ALWD and has good ALWD examples 2.) it goes into more depth than other citation guides online such as Purdue's OWL for MLA citations. For it is a good link that explains ALWD well, it can serve as a good secondary source because the official ALWD guidelines are tedious and long. Can an admin white list this one page, the whole domain should not be white listed for I did not research the rest of the site yet. Reed40 (talk) 16:25, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It seems like either of these sources say basically the same thing without the blatant spammy fluff:
    Both links show examples. The superiorpapers article compares Bluebook with AWLD, and so does the asl.edu document. Will those be sufficient? I have deep misgivings about giving free publicity to any site whose business model encourages students to cheat on assignments. Just look at their home page. Ugh. ~Amatulić (talk) 10:33, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What the superiorpapers.com article has that those two PDFs do not is that it includes a history explaining the background as to why there are two different citation styles. For example, APA is the citation format for psychology papers and MLA is for literature papers. However, legal citations have one major format and a rising minor format; why did this happen? This is something special and should be addressed in an encyclopedia. Also, those two PDFs stated *how* to cite legal works but ,for *how to* information is not really an encyclopedia topic, those two sources are not that good (no other citation format article on Wikipedia has how to information as well). You stated that you dislike having to cite a site such as this but, given the context, a site who's business is writing papers should be an authority on how to write papers, especially since they do cite their sources. My request is not to white-list the whole domain--this will prevent any unjust publicity to the site from occurring--but just to white-list this article: it is of merit for a citation and not citing it would go more against Wikipedia then for it. I hope you can see it my way. Reed40 (talk) 16:21, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The links I suggested address your reasons in your initial request: 1) they show examples, and 2) they g go into some depth. Given your new requirement about having a source explaining why ALWD is emerging, there are alternative sources for that too, such as http://iipsj.com/SDJ/scholarship/alwdciterev.htm for example. My point is that white-listing a blacklisted site, particularly one as spammy as that, is not the preference when alternative sources exist.
    I do agree that a site whose business is to write well-cited school papers would be an authority on citations. That goes back to your original two points. However, being an authority on writing well-cited school papers does not mean they are the authority on the history and the reasoning for the emerging popularity of ALWD citations. For that, they would have needed to refer to other sources. They reference some. If any of those are relevant, then those are preferable to cite. Superiorpapers is a WP:TERTIARY source at best, for which anything they say about subjects other than their actual business may be of questionable reliability.
    Given that alternative sources demonstrably exist, and that superiorpapers is not an established authority on the history and rationales behind the 3rd party tools they use in their business, I am inclined to decline this request, but I would like to see another admin weigh in. I have no objection to whitelisting if there's a small consensus in favor of it, but I urge any other admin reading this to look at the proposed site first (the home page and all, not just the proposed page to whitelist). ~Amatulić (talk) 17:02, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/the-clockwork-quartet-free-music-art-steampunk-serial-and-a-table-top-game

    I want to use this article as a reference for The Clockwork Quartet. I was told I need more sources for the aforementioned page I'm trying to create and believe this is worth inclusion. It is a simple article that includes a review of the graphic novel portion of their multimedia project. I am not affiliated with The Clockwork Quartet. As a disclaimer, I wrote for Examiner.com several years ago but I am not associated with them any longer (nor was the subject even remotely related to this topic). I do understand how Examiner is usually a problem and agree with your assertion of such. Thanks for your consideration.

    • Have you read /Common requests to gain an understanding of why Examiner.com links are normally not permitted? Stifle (talk) 19:52, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 19:21, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com Jonas Hellborg review

    I am requesting this particular interview examiner.com/article/a-review-of-jonas-hellborg-s-art-metal to be whitelisted for the article I just wrote on this Jonas Hellborg album here en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Metal_(album). It would be a helpful review for the references list. Thank you! Vintagenie (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:37, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitelist the link to Encyclopedia Dramatica on Encyclopedia Dramatica

    I thought we sorted this years ago, but I couldn't just now fix the sidebar link to encyclopediadramatica.se on Encyclopedia Dramatica. Maybe it's just because they moved from being .com ? Anyway, it's just common sense to be able to link to a website from our article about that notable website, no? -- Kendrick7talk 04:50, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I think we should find a specific link for the mainpage, likely something like "encyclopediadramatica.se/wiki/Main_page", or the about page. We do have "\bencyclopediadramatica\.com\/Encyclopedia_Dramatica:About\b" on our whitelist, maybe it should be changed to the se? .. Note, links, also for official sites, are a convenience for the reader, they are not necessary - there are sometimes (generally spam, abuse or malware related) reasons why everything on a site is blacklisted, and such links can not be used, ever. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The encyclopediadramatica.com domain name appears to have changed ownership to a domain squatter of some sort, and now redirects to ohinternet.com. The original Encyclopedia Dramatica site is notable enough to warrant its own article on Wikipedia, but is not regarded as a reliable source. I have changed the domain name in the white list so that the "about" page may still be linked in the article.  Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:44, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Luis Ramírez de Lucena

    worldchesslinks.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

    I just edited the article on Luis Ramírez de Lucena, adding some info about his family history I found on www.worldchesslinks.net/ezi14.html; I think the old text definitely needed some improvement (it was "Luis Ramírez de Lucena (c. 1465 – c. 1530) was a Jewish converted to Roman Catholicism and leading Spanish chess player", not even a grammatically correct sentence). The mentioned article by Daniele Ciani looks well written to me.

    • This seems like a valid request. Stifle (talk) 20:00, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved Stifle (talk) 12:14, 29 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thank you. Sorry for forgetting to sign my request. Bever (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    moneyweek.com/alternative-investments-silver-wine-art-gold-22100/

    moneyweek.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 Seems to be a good summary of the principle underlying the class. I'd like to cite it in my expansion of a stub I just created, SWAG (silver, wine art and gold). --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 23:55, 23 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Kate Garvey speaker bio at personal assistant conference

    Why: to support citation for her start as a political staffer (Neil Kinnock stint before Tony Blair), maybe a couple other facts in article.

    Where: Kate Garvey

    URL: www.iqpc.com/ShowEvent.aspx?id=119504&details=120098&langtype=1033

    P.s. Thanks for your work.TCO (talk) 01:12, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    mokimobility.com/about/

    mokimobility.com/about/ For use on MokiMobility.

    I accepted this article at AFC today and tried to include the company website in the infobox but the domain is blacklisted. Refer to this discussion where an editor suggested using the company's "About" page rather than its landing page.

    I've reviewed the page, and the company's "About" page has information that readers might find useful.QuantifiedElf (talk) 19:26, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    plus Added to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 23 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    silkroadvb5piz3r.onion

    Silk_Road_(marketplace) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    To give a little background, .onion address lead to hidden websites, and they always incorporate a hash string. This fact makes them hard to verify and therefore vulnerable to substitution by links to phishing sites, which is why the whole .onion TLD was recently blacklisted. The discussion at the time anticipated that the whitelist would be used to permit the handful of necessary .onion links. The Silk Road article has been prone to such phishing attacks, so I welcome this policy.

    As can be seen from this discussion, some people have expressed strong views against including this link in the article. The !votes have a small bias towards inclusion, and (as I cover in more detail in my review here and ensuing discussion) none of the opposing votes succeed in explaining why this link would contravene our policies. The main policy cited is WP:ELNO which does not apply to official links. The WMF has announced that there is no legal issue with this link that requires their intervention.

    Following a link to a hidden website requires additional software beyond a vanilla web browser, but this is also true of external links to videos and PDFs. For comparison, see the .onion link used here. We could undoubtedly do better at presenting links to hidden websites, for example by creating a template that allows the user to use a selection of proxy services.

    An associated configuration change in XLinkBot may be required, as it is apparently also policing a restriction on .onion links.

    As an administrator, I could go ahead and add the link to the whitelist myself but, given some of the things that have have been said and done with respect to this issue, I thought that it might reduce drama to open it for discussion here first. I urge anyone contributing to this thread to avoid rehashing points that have been adequately explored in the links above. Bovlb (talk) 17:38, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    As the administrator who has been suggesting a couple of times to blacklist all off .onion (though I did not blacklist the domain myself), I agree that the fact that we blacklist ALL of .onion does not mean that official sites should not be whitelisted. There have been many problems with .onion (insertion of redirects, insertion of phishing links 'redirecting' to the original) but I believe that this should be done.
    The XLinkBot rule does not need adaptation, that only is for non-established accounts/IPs, anyone with a 'given' right is ignored completely, and autoconfirmed users are not reverted. Moreover, XLinkBot can be reverted and the bot will not re-revert, the bot will 'assume' good faith on the reversions. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    And as the administrator who actually added *.onion to the blacklist, I have no objection to adding official .onion domains to the whitelist. I think this is a reasonable request. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:52, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to whitelist. ⇌ Jake Wartenberg 19:25, 5 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.youporn.com

    You were directed here to request whitelisting of a specific page on youporn.com, not the entire domain. To whitelist their home page we'd need an absolute path there, like www.youporn.com/index.php (which doesn't work). Do you have a path name to a specific page to suggest? Typically we'd whitelist a site's "about us" page, but I don't see one. The most relevant one might be the site map page: www.youporn.com/sitemap.html. Will that work? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I think sitemap is fine, I can link that. --helohe (talk) 15:45, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to whitelist. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:49, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    eqt5g4fuenphqinx.onion

    Tor_(anonymity_network) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

    To give some background, *.onion addresses has been discussed several times, with the first time originated from the Tor (anonymity network) regarding a link to The Hidden Wiki a few years ago. At that time, the article had several .onion links, and consensus from that discussion resulted in all but one to be removed, the hidden wiki to be blacklisted, and *.onion to be put on the xlinkbot list. The link that was kept is the one here that I would like to be whitelisted, and is an rather basic introduction/welcome page for the .onion hidden service network. The link has been on the tor project article ever since consensus was created and no vandalism has yet to be seen over the years its been there.

    However, a discussion on Silk Road (marketplace) promoted a new request for blacklisting all the *.onion addresses, and was rather quick granted with no discussion on the blacklist noticeboard, thus adding the still xlinkbot listed item to the blacklist. To avoid problems, I would thus like that the above introduction page to be whitelisted.

    See #silkroadvb5piz3r.onion discussion below for additional context and background, and the blacklist archive. Belorn (talk) 08:19, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Reasonable request, plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:31, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    Galatta.com

    Here is a message to wikipedia by the CEO of Galatta regarding the block, which apparently had been ignored the time he wrote it:

    I am writing this email requesting your consideration in revoking the ban for my website Galatta.com from Wikipedia. Galatta.com is a South Indian movie portal which features the latest news on Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Malayalam, Hindi and English movies. From the year 2005, one of our web marketing executive without understanding the repercussions of his work went on to repeatedly add links of Galatta.comand other in-house sites to improve its performance in search engines and generate traffic. This resulted in severely damaging our reputation in Wikipedia and resulted in blocking the account and site. You can find the complete history of conversation happened between our team and Wikipedia administrators from the link http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Chrisdru We stopped all such activities the moment, we were notified about the ban. As a business owner, I understand the nature of abuse and convey my sincere apologize to the Wikipedia team. It’s been 5 years and we or my people have not used Wikipedia for any spamming and I would request you to reconsider your decision. Looking forward to your positive response.

    I obtained this message, when I requested for copyright permission for their pictures as we lack pictures for South Indian actors. Please take a positive decision as soon as possible based on Galatta.com CEO message.-- Dravidian  Hero  12:58, 22 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It is a reliable source, coming from an established print magazine, and yes there are many other reliable sources, but Indian editors would like to have this site unblocked as another available major source for our film articles.-- Dravidian  Hero  17:33, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If there are other reliable sources, then use them. That is always preferable to using a blacklisted source. Here's one: http://www.ndtv.com/article/south/read-kamal-haasan-s-emotional-letter-thanking-fans-326308
    Messages from CEOs or anyone else with a conflict of interest will not be considered for general unblock efforts. We'd rather see such requests come from established, trusted, high-volume editors. no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 02:22, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Could I've missed something to read before I filed this request? I can't see anything about "established, trusted, high-volume" editors. You seem to doing this way too long.-- Dravidian  Hero  03:00, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't miss anything on this page, no. I wrote that in the context of de-listing the entire site as you suggested, and those requests are handled over at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. On the blacklist page, we have a practice of denying requests for de-listing if they originate from anyone but a trusted, high-volume editor without a conflict of interest (new, recent, low-volume editors who make de-listing requests have insufficient history to be assumed to be without a conflict of interest). See the banner at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, as well as the archives of that section.
    If you see something on galatta.com for which no alternative reliable source exists, feel free to post a new request for whitelisting here. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:57, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This one was a request to unblock a particular site, not the entire domain or IP as one step to get the entire site unblocked. If you had read the link in my request, you would have seen, that I came directly from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. I'm getting fooled around since over 2 weeks from MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist to MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist to Meta Spam blacklist and back and forth. This is worse than any public office. Excuse my rant, but I can't believe what I'm experiencing right now.-- Dravidian  Hero  05:15, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    If you see something on galatta.com for which no alternative reliable source exists, feel free to post a new request for whitelisting here. I would never write anything in wikipedia, which has only one source. That would be cherrypicking and a clear indicator of unserious reporting.-- Dravidian  Hero  05:25, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Precisely what is it that you want? One link permitted, or all links to the site unblocked? Stifle (talk) 20:14, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    This one link I provided in the opening post of me.-- Dravidian  Hero  21:34, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, I am minded to approve this but will leave open for another short while for any concluding discussion. Stifle (talk) 14:33, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I had already declined this request because alternative sources exist. I have no problem unblocking a specific page on galatta.com, but the one requested has alternatives, so there is no need to whitelist that. There is no compelling reason to white-list any page on a blacklisted site if alternative reliable sources exist. If galatta.com is itself a reliable source, and there's something on it that can't be found anywhere else (such as an interview, for example), then we can white-list such a page. But the request for the page that started this section is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:36, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    These reliable sources mention both Galatta the magazine and Galatta.com in high light, and that clearly establishes notability of Galatta overall i think. the sources are listed as follows:

    Courtesy, Kailash29792 (talk) 15:24, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Notability is not the issue here. The coverage is irrelevant to the blacklisting. Notable sites do get blacklisted.
    As stated earlier, the purpose of this page is to request white-listing of a specific page on a blacklisted site, where no non-blacklisted alternatives exist. So far, this has not happened in spite of the length of this discussion. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:49, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Is there any way the entire site can be whitelisted? Kailash29792 (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This site got blacklisted after serious, massive abuse of a long list (I could say massive list) of related domains by a significant list of socks. The abuser has been banned (not just that the socks and master were all blocked) through a discussion on an administrator's noticeboard. That happens after massive unresponsiveness and massive abuse without change in behaviour (generally, spam is just blacklisted, and the spammers not even necessarily blocked .. blocking accounts is generally useless since the spammer will just, as evident, make another sock). Spammers can see it coming that the sites they spam are getting blacklisted, that is not done lightly. I find it therefore very, very hard to believe that one employee did this on his own account. This must have taken a long time of spamming, a campaign.

    I also note, that this site is globally blacklisted, and none of the almost 800 mediawiki wikis, most significantly the ones from India .., have whitelisted this site. We have TWO links whitelisted on en.wikipedia (and those whitelists have been wholesale copied to three other wikis, resulting in those two links being whitelisted on 4 wikis in total; note that of those 2, only one, a blog post, is used as a general reference here locally (and I wonder if the two other references used in this article would not cover the info from the blogpost already), the other whitelisted link is currently not even used), and that is all that is whitelisted .. on all ~799 wikis. None of the other wikis have any rules regarding 'galatta'. Apparently all other wikis find better sources, and until now also en.wikipedia has found better sources almost exclusively, and in fact the one that is requested here is replaceable in itself.

    Kailash29792: regarding your question, yes, there are ways for the entire site - what I would suggest to show that there are multiple cases where whitelisting is needed for references which are not replaceable (not like apparently the one that started this thread). When there are multiple of such cases, we could consider to replace it with the whole domain, though I would still be weary seen the massiveness of the original campaign. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:57, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/modelmanagement-com-s-6-tips?cid=db_articles

    Requesting URL page to be removed from blacklist. I need the URL page for my article Bokyqwer (talk) 10:08, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. That examiner article isn't coverage. It appears to be no more than a puff piece written to promote a social networking site. I suggest going directly to the original source; use http://www.modelmanagement.com/modeling-advice/modeling-tips/ instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 13:07, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]


    suvenirograd.ru

    suvenirograd.ru: 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

    Request single page page suvenirograd.ru/impressions.php?id=2&lang=2&pid=9 to be allowed on page Karp_Lykov. That page is a description (in English) of a research trip (written and performed by G. Kramor Employee of the Yershov museum - I have no further information on these names; the page appears genuine though with "pictures by the author"). The page offers more specific descriptions of the religious background and about the place of origin of Karp_Lykov and his family. Both aspects are relevant to his history of fleeing into Siberian solitarity for 42 years. -DePiep (talk) 21:24, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Did you read my request? And how do the advertisements in say NYT or any other newspaper (not) discredit the content pages? -DePiep (talk) 15:12, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Additional information needed. I read your request. The site itself looks like an online store, which does not fill me with confidence that any articles they may publish would be considered reliable sources. Nobody mentioned advertisements; that's irrelevant. What matters is whether the personal "travel impressions" (which is how the site describes these articles) of an "employee of the Yershov museum" can be considered a reliable source. Please take your case to WP:RSN to get a community view of the reliability of this source. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:49, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. No RSN request in evidence, assuming the requester is no longer interested. Stifle (talk) 17:18, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/the-emergence-of-yiddish-theater-montreal

    I am requesting the whitelisting of two pages:

    • Carol Roach, "Yiddish Theater in Montreal", Examiner, May 14, 2012.[www.examiner.com/article/jewish-theater-montreal];
    • Carol Rpach, "The emergence of Yiddish theater in Montreal", "Examiner", May 14, 2012[www.examiner.com/article/the-emergence-of-yiddish-theater-montreal.

    The site is a good source for Yiddish life in Montreal. Eklir (talk) 22:25, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/let-s-get-old-school-for-a-moment-aardwolf-mud

    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 I hope to use this web page as a reference for the Wikipedia article "Aardwolf (MUD)". The web page contains detailed information about Aardwolf, including an in-depth interview with the MUD's developer, Lasher. It is clear that the author has played the MUD. For what it's worth, I have also played the MUD and I can verify that the information is accurate. I understand that examiner.com is blacklisted due to its model of article creation. However I believe that the information on this particular web page is accurate and reliable. Axl ¤ [Talk] 19:38, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello? Axl ¤ [Talk] 16:09, 20 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What is it about that interview that would be useful for referencing in the article? Given the author's bio, I'll grant that the piece is accurate and reliable; however, because something in examiner.com is accurate and reliable isn't a reason to whitelist it. Convenience also isn't a reason to whitelist. Why is this a useful reference on Wikipedia? What information in it can't be found anywhere else? ~Amatulić (talk) 15:16, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Being accurate, reliable & convenient aren't good reasons to whitelist a web page? I find that surprising. Are there (consensus-derived) guidelines to help decide which web pages should be whitelisted?
    To address your question: I found three other sources that are suitable as references. Of these, one is an interview with the MUD designer/owner. That is an older page, from 2009. The examiner.com article is from 2011, with more up to date information. Axl ¤ [Talk] 21:32, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    The blacklist contains several sources that are accurate, reliable, and convenient. They are blacklisted due to a history of abuse. That is the only consideration. Their accuracy, reliability, or convenience are completely irrelevant considerations to the blacklist. Convenience, especially, is not a reason to white-list. There is no requirement for sources to be online.
    However, reliability is a consideration for white-listing, provided that alternatives don't exist. I assume with good faith that you believe the article is useful for Wikipedia. So I ask again, how? If alternative sources are available, what would motivate Wikipedia to provide examiner.com with yet another revenue stream by white-listing one of its pages? Is there something unique in that article, beyond being published in 2011, that would be useful to reference where no other source will do? ~Amatulić (talk) 22:49, 22 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not disputing the reasons for blacklisting a website. Rather, I disagree with your criteria for whitelisting a web page. Since you haven't pointed to (consensus-derived) guidelines, I assume that your criteria are simply your own opinion. Alongside reliability, in my opinion one of the most important criteria is the likelihood of future spam ("abuse") if whitelisted—something that you haven't mentioned at all. Axl ¤ [Talk] 20:46, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    My answer basically followed the consensus that has been long-established for this page. It's also stated to you right up front in the big green box that appears when you edit a section on this page: A whitelisted link must be useful to Wikipedia. It follows that if alternatives are available, then those alternatives should be used rather than whitelisting a link. I ask again: Is there something unique in that article that would be useful to reference where no other source will do? Your last statement is a non-sequitur. Future abuse doesn't follow from whitelisting a single page; that's more about whitelisting an entire site. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fluoridealert.org/articles/50-reasons/

    It would be a nice addition for the Water_fluoridation page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.154.157.151 (talk • contribs) 00:54, 15 April 2013

    Perhaps. An identical request to yours was made last year and declined: MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Archives/2013/01#fluoridealert.org.
    I have looked closely at this article. While the site is clearly an advocacy site with a bias, that particular article appears to be well researched and referenced to other reliable sources. My concern is that this is a WP:TERTIARY source of uncertain reliability. It would be far better to examine the sources cited to be certain that fluoridealert.org isn't engaging in synthesis or original research in its interpretation of those sources, and cite those sources instead. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:22, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 17:24, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.metaldetectingforum.co.uk/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=11904&p=100971

    metaldetectingforums.co.uk: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I would like to use this specific forum thread on the External coverage section of Day of Archaeology because the link illustrates the point that 'The project covers any form of work...'. The link is illustrative rather than being used to make a point about archaeology. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. See WP:ELNO item 10. We could make an exception if the forum was an official forum for the project, but that isn't the case here. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:15, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/june-29-friday-global-day-of-archaeology

    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 I would like to use this article on External coverage section of Day of Archaeology because the link illustrates a piece of coverage in non-archaeology-specific media that the project generated. I realise that examiner.com is at /common requests but am not using the information content of the article - its mere existence is relevant. Thanks PatHadley (talk) 19:52, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • The "mere existence" of something on examiner.com is no more relevant than existence on a blog or any other site consisting of user-generated content. Because anybody can publish anything they want on examiner.com without any editorial oversight, it is hardly surprising that someone interested in archaeology would post a note about it there. If any non-archaeology-specific media with editorial oversight deems it appropriate to publish an article about the project, that would be relevant. Therefore  Not done. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:10, 19 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on ComputerVision computer company

    This article www.cbronline.com/news/computervision_agrees_to_sell_prime_informationopen_to_vmark

    should be added to the whitelist as it explains a crucial step in how Prime Information became acquired by Rocket Software. It's valuable for the history it pinpoints. It's just an article on the sale of a computer asset from one company to another. Wjhonson (talk) 04:21, 27 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Alternative sources can't be found? Here's one: http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/bostonherald/access/68797430.html?dids=68797430:68797430&FMT=ABS which contains the quotation (this came from Google cache, it's visible if you pay for the full version) "VMark Software will buy the software developed by Prime to allow customers an ... the Bedford company prepared to go public as a born-again Computervision." ~Amatulić (talk) 02:16, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Not done Stifle (talk) 21:26, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.findspermdonor.com/default

    • findspermdonor.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
    • findspermdonor.com/default
    • Why it should be whitelisted: FindSpermDonor.com is an online sperm bank. It's an online sperm donor catalog and it's non-commercial. It's a sperm bank as any other sperm bank, just online and hassle free.
    • Which article would benefit: Anyone who searched for "Sperm Donor" or "Sperm Bank" articles should be interested in such a site as an external link. It's as relevant as "http://dk.cryosinternational.com" which appears on the "Sperm_bank" article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Babydate (talk • contribs) 15:23, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
       Not done. Invalid rationale. This page is for requesting whitelisting of specific pages, not entire domains. Also, we generally don't entertain requests from users with a conflict of interest. -Amatulic
    • The front page is enough. the link is updated.
      You have not provided any valid rationale for whitelisting. The fact that it's an online sperm bank is irrelevant. The fact that it's non-commercial is irrelevant. The fact that it's online and "hassle free" is irrelevant.
      We don't white-list for the purpose of including external links, we white-list for the purpose of including references, or external links to companies for which the company is the article topic — and we have no article about this company. Also the dk.cryosinternational.com links are not necessarily relevant (one is dead); they look like refspam, and their presence are not a reason to include links to other company web sites. Therefore, this request is  Denied. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The main topic of this website is a sperm bank, so this is practically a link to a company which is the topic of the article. This was my rational. I do apologize that it seemed like an automated spam. I manually edited all the entries since I believed it can contribute to the topic as an external link to a sperm bank company in a sperm bank/sperm donor topic Babydate (talk) 16:58, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Did this not get blacklisted in the last couple of days because of all the spam?  Denied. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:17, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Single Page: squidoo.com/RachelMaddowShowBookList

    squidoo.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

    Explain why the site should be whitelisted:

    I created this article/webpage because I could not find a list of the books written by the guests on The Rachel Maddow Show. Many television shows and radio shows have a section of their website where they list the books and music which appears on the show. The Rachel Maddow show does not have such a page. The Rachel Maddow Blog (maddowblog.msnbc.com/) lists the names of the guests and occasionally will mention if the guest is an author and may mention a specific book the author has written. However, this is NOT done consistently. And there is not a single page on the site which provides a single listing. If an author and/or their book is noted it is buried under the entry for that date, not displayed in a separate section labelled "books."

    The same is true for the music used on the show. Nightly there is a different song used for the transitions to and from commercials and to and from different segments of the show. The Maddow Blog lists this but not in a concise or easy way to find. The name of the song is often hidden in a link which involves a clever pun. While I'm a big fan of puns, it does make it difficult to find the name of the song. Which is why I included the bumper music as well as the books in my article.

    I create the list of books on the page by using the Guest List posted on the Rachel Maddow Blog for each night's show. I search Amazon and Wikipedia to see if they have written any books. If they have, I list the author's most recently published book on my page. I include a short one line description of the author, usually with their affiliation and I provide a link to the Wikipedia article about the author if one exists and if it does not have a "trouble flag" of some kind. If there is no Wikipedia article, I do a Google search and include a link to the authors homepage if one exists or to an "about the author" page on the most authoritative site I can find. Usually this is on the webpage of the institution with which the author is affiliated: NPR, think tanks, newspapers, magazines, publisher websites, or non-profit organizations.

    Here is an excerpt from the introduction of my article which explains more fully the scope and purpose of my article/web page:

    "The Rachel Maddow Show usually features one or two guests during the sixty minute program who are, sometimes, also authors who have written one or more books.
    .
    Usually the guest author is there to provide commentary on the topic of the day, or to be interviewed because they are the topic of the day. Therefore, any plug of the author's book is secondary to the author's pundit or news role.
    .
    Given that focus, it is understandable that there is no easy or concise way to find a list of the books mentioned or featured on the show. Trust me, I looked.
    .
    I'm a librarian and I'm pretty good at finding information on the Internet, IF it exists: there is NOT a simple concise list of the books and songs from TRMS.
    .
    So I decided to create one!"

    Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link. I would like to add a link to my article/bibliography in the external links section of this article on Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rachel_maddow_show I think that people looking for information about the Rachel Maddow Show would benefit from having this information about the books and music from the show.

    Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. This is the page I am requesting to be whitelisted. Just this page, not the whole domain: squidoo.com/RachelMaddowShowBookList

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by TxCowboyDancer (talk • contribs) 07:48, 30 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Are you aware of some key Wikipedia policies and guidelines that you are proposing to violate with this request?
    Engaging in original research on some other site and linking to it isn't really any different from engaging in original research directly in a Wikipedia article. In this case you might be able to write a list article on Wikipedia called List of books featured on the Rachel Maddow Show and link to that from The Rachel Maddow Show but I suspect such a list article may get deleted as trivia.
    I don't doubt your expertise as a librarian, or your good faith efforts in creating that site on Squidoo. But Wikipedia policies and guidelines are pretty clear that your Squidoo page wouldn't last long on Wikipedia even if it were whitelisted. Therefore, I have no choice but to mark this request as no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:57, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    No, I wasn't aware of those policies. Thank you for the link. I'm new here on the editing side of Wikipedia. I've used the site for some time but never created an account.  :-) Thank you for your time in considering the request. --TxCowboyDancer (talk) 03:04, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    And thank you for your understanding. I liked the work you did, but my personal opinion also wouldn't justify whitelisting. If you give the same attention to detail and thoroughness in your contributions to Wikipedia as you did to that site, then you will be an asset to Wikipedia. ~Amatulić (talk) 12:34, 1 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    cypress.com

    cypress.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

    1. why. It should be added to the whitelist because Cypress Semiconductor is a 31-year old IC manufacturing corporation in Silicon Valley. No corporation with a stock symbol should ever be put on the blacklist, seriously! see http://www.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:CY • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    2. which articles. PSoC and Cypress Semiconductor. I've been working on various ARM processor articles, so PSoC is why I'm here today. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    3. specific link. www.cypress.com/?id=4749&source=productshome and investors.cypress.com/releasedetail.cfm?ReleaseID=758772 and there are plenty more references that I need to cleanup or fix in the article. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 11:58, 2 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Google finance links are irrelevant to the blacklist. The age of the company is irrelevant to the blacklist. I also admire the company, as do many investors, but your personal views or mine are also irrelevant. All that really matters is past behavior, and Cypress's past deserves blacklisting. Accept that and move on.
    I'd have no problem with the first link request, but wouldn't the general products overview page be better? That one's at www.cypress.com/?id=2&source=header -- I'll tell you up front that an admin will likely not want to white-list every single product page on that site. An encyclopedia article isn't a portal to a company web site, after all.
    As to the second link: Press releases are inappropriate for using as references, as are any other self-published material. Also, press releases are widely available, so there is no need to white-list such pages from a blacklisted domain. See http://www.businesswire.com/news/home/20130424005635/en/Fully-Qualified-Production-Silicon-Cypress%E2%80%99s-PSoC%C2%AE-4 as an alternative. Please restrict your requests to pages that have no alternative elsewhere. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:55, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/RevU_fNpITE

    youtu.be: 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

    • youtu.be/RevU_fNpITE

    Request single page to be added to Saidels Bakery as a reference, it is the only TV appearance of Les Saidel to date and thus a very important reference to the page. Eliezersaidel (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Use the full youtube.com URL http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RevU_fNpITE, which isn't blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:47, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Google redirect link

    www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=16&ved=0CEIQFjAFOAo&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dcnr.state.pa.us%2Fcs%2Fgroups%2Fpublic%2Fdocuments%2Fdocument%2Fdcnr_010537.docx&ei=zDGIUf8Yx-HTAaXfgbgK&usg=AFQjCNGRnbqtA7WOHFSiR222FQT86YZCeg

    Trying to use this page as a source in a draft I'm working on, but the spam blacklist won't let it through :(. King Jakob C2 23:01, 6 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Don't use Google redirect links (or any other redirect link from anyone else) on Wikipedia. Use the direct link instead. In this case http://www.dcnr.state.pa.us/cs/groups/public/documents/document/dcnr_010537.docx is not blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:09, 7 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.annyas.com/screenshots/saul-bass-title-sequences

    annyas.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

    Request that this single page from this website be whitelisted so that I can add it to the Saul Bass page as an external link, as it offers one of the most complete selections and analyses of Saul Bass title sequences on the web. Thanks, Hulahoop122 (talk) 05:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC).[reply]

    According to the logs, that specific link is the primary reason why annyas.com is blacklisted, not just on the English Wikipedia, but globally across all Wikis. Not sure about whether that site infringes copyrights either, but from my perspective it looks like fair use. Anyway,  Not done for now, but other admin comments are welcome. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:56, 13 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com article on Ron Paul march

    The individual link i am requesting to be permitted is: examiner.com/article/historic-veterans-for-ron-paul-march-on-the-white-house

    I have been researching several sources/link pertaining to the event in question, 2012 Ron Paul veteran march on DC. And this seemed to be the only link that outlined a key segment from the event; the part where they stood in silence, reverse from the White House — 8 minutes for those killed in suicide and another 20 minutes for those killed in battle. While i have used other sources/links for citation of other lines for the wiki article (Adam Kokesh), only this can be used to source the moment of silence part. Thanks in advance. DA1 (talk) 22:04, 16 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done because alternative reliable sources are easily found within seconds. Did you miss sources such as: International Business Times and ABC news? ~Amatulić (talk) 00:22, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, have you read my explanation? I actually have sourced those links in the wiki article already. The reason for the examiner link is specifically to cite the claim regarding the time length for the moment-of-silence (8min and 20min). There are NO other articles online that mention how long the moment-of-silence was and how it was broken down. If you can get it, please let me know. If not, then please allow the link passage. DA1 (talk) 22:05, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.voobly.com/pages/view/about

    I would like to do an article about the Peer to Peer Software Voobly. It is a widely used matchmaking software that supports over 50 classic CD Rom PC Games and even Microsoft Gaming Zone referred their players to use this software for cd rom matchmaking when they retired their service. The software is similar to other software on wikipedia such as Garena, Gameranger and Tunngle, but also offers different features such as an Elo Rating System. Voobly is already mentioned in a couple Wikipedia articles such as Age of Empires II: The Age of Kings and Age of Empires II: The Conquerors. I request that www.voobly.com/pages/view/about be white listed for use of reference in the article, Thank You VPIN3 (talk) 15:24, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • Age of Empires I & II Matchmaking Retired on MSN Games[3]
    • Voobly 2.1.60.24[4]
    • Voobly 2.1[5]
    • Voobly caters for many different CD-ROM games[6]
    • Age of Empires II Online dengan Voobly[7]
    • Voobly Software Awards[8]

    Do you have a draft article? Stifle (talk) 21:32, 18 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes I have a draft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:VPIN3/Voobly VPIN3 (talk) 04:55, 19 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't see any of those sources as being significant coverage as required by WP:SIGCOV. What we have here (in the same order as above):
    • trivial mention
    • a download page on Softpedia (see WP:ELNO #4 and #5)
    • primary source (see WP:PRIMARY)
    • a lengthy user review on rtsguru (see WP:ELNO #10 and #11)
    • a blog post with "how-to" instructions (see WP:NOTHOWTO, WP:ELNO #11, and WP:SPS)
    • primary source
    The draft article itself cites other Wikipedia articles, which is something Wikipedia articles shouldn't do.
    I don't see anything that indicates notability as defined by WP:CORP. I am skeptical that this article would be accepted if submitted for review. I understand you're still working on it. It's perfectly OK to include a single link to www.voobly.com/pages/view/about for the purpose of completeness, but citing Voobly in an article about Voobly isn't going to work well. Once the article is submitted for review and accepted, it would be no problem to white-list that link.
    So  Not done for now, to be revisited after the article is accepted. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:28, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.avoiceformen.com/author/erin-pizzey/ articles

    avoiceformen.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 attempted to get the site off the blacklist and this was rejected, and it was suggested I apply to get certain articles useful for Wikipedia whitelisted. Wikipedia has an article about Erin Pizzey, the notable founder of the first domestic violence shelter in the world. She has written several articles she has consented to be published on AV4M and I would like all of them to be linkable. The section title is her author overview page, and here are the specific article links I would like to see whitelisted:

    1. www.avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/from-avfm-editor-at-large-erin-pizzey/
    2. www.avoiceformen.com/feminism/erin-pizzey-reflects-on-toronto/
    3. www.avoiceformen.com/miscellaneous/aerobics/
    4. www.avoiceformen.com/women/working-with-violent-women/
    5. www.avoiceformen.com/updates/live-now-on-reddit/
    6. www.avoiceformen.com/updates/erin-pizzey-live-on-reddit-part-2/
    7. www.avoiceformen.com/updates/statement-from-erin-pizzey/

    If we have an article about a person, linking to things that person wrote is quite useful for establishing who they are and what they are about. Ranze (talk) 22:15, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Howabout you just put a sentence somewhere in the article that she has published work on the website of a voice for men. The interested reader can probably do a google search on his or her own. -- Avi (talk) 22:18, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Showing which works someone has published as a 'proof' that someone publishes on a site is a form of using primary sourcing. Moreover, we are not a web-directory to show what works someone has published and link to all of that. Please find a reliable source thát she is publishing there, and use that as a reference - this is just not necessary, except if some of these works are really necessary as a reference to verify another fact. Please read WP:NOT, WP:EL, WP:RS, WP:V, WP:SPAM to see what our relevant policies and guidelines are for linking, what should be linked and what does not need to be linked. no Declined. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    youtu.be/0Vf8zH4E6fM

    I would like to cite the video of the construction of the folkfloor at Northwest Folklife -- in the folk tradition much of the history is oral and this video provides an oral/video record of how the floor was started, how it's built, and the materials used in its construction (Masonite, and Homasote. This community building-event has been going on for more than 25 years. RichardLetts (talk) 06:00, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a redirect service, specifically for YouTube. Since YouTube itself has problems (there are several cases where specific youtube links are blacklisted, here and on meta), is anyway (often) a discouraged link, and redirect services are (except for very, very few exceptions) utterly not necessary for Wikipedia (moreover, most redirecting services obscure what is being linked), the redirect site has been meta-blacklisted to avoid blacklist evasion and give clarity of linking - you can use the full link instead: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Vf8zH4E6fM. no Declined - but I hope this helps and explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 22 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.uitmetkorting.nl

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

    I would like to cite an article (research) on Uitmetkorting.nl (this one http://www.uitmetkorting.nl/informatie/autipas/) at both Dutch Wiki sites about Autistic people (nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/autisme & nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/autipas. In this article all Dutch day recreation attractions are contacted to find out if they accept the Autistic passport (Autipas in Dutch). This is the only reliable and complete overview available online which state what conditions every day attraction has in allowing autistic people to visit there park/zoo/museum etc.

    Obviously, since you can link it here, it is not blacklisted here. It is only blacklisted on the Dutch Wikipedia, which means that you will have to ask for delisting there. Nothing to do here, so marking as  Not done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:46, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.fertilityproregistry.com/article/possible-side-effects-of-preimplantation-genetic-diagnosis.html

    It looks like the URL, www.fertilityproregistry.com, is blocked. I only need to cite the above one URL. Please add it to the whitelist. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.106.103.54 (talk) 23:47, 21 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I intend to use the link to cite on Preimplantation genetic diagnosis wiki page to show the possible side effects associated with the diagnosis.
    Can anyone tell me what is the status with this approval please? Do you need any additional info from me?

    Examiner.com on Paul McGehee

    www.examiner.com/article/looking-back-time-with-paul-mcgehee-master-painter-his-genre Tried to add to the article: Articles for creation/Paul McGehee

    This is an article about an artist named Paul McGehee who I am trying to add an article about. The article is in progress and not yet approved because it did not have enough media articles to establish the person's notability. Mr. McGehee has been pretty well known in the Washington area since the 80s, and I think a lot of the articles about him are from before the internet and so cannot be found online. The one article I already had is from U.S. News and World Report, which was a major national newsmagazine. I think it is important because this is a very mainstream news article about him and it is surprisingly hard to find those about him. I was hoping that with a couple more of them my article would be approved.

    I don't know what the problem could be with the Examiner. Here in the DC area it's probably the #3 or even #2 local paper, after the Post and maybe the Times. Nothing unusual about it. I don't have any connection with the Examiner, I don't see their web site much, and I don't know what they did to tick you all off, but I don't see how you can be encyclopedic while saying you won't accept any references to a major newspaper.

    - John Crouch

    Did you read /Common requests? Examiner.com is not the same as the DC local paper of a similar name. It's an online site that exercises zero editorial control over what gets published, with the objective of paying authors per click. That makes it a spam magnet on Wikipedia.
    I'll add that if the only coverage on a topic comes from examiner.com, well, that isn't considered a reliable source for the purposes of WP:SIGCOV. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:44, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    "zero editorial control" is a oft-repeated but false accusation. Examiner editors are pre-screened before being allowed to publish, and every article goes through an independent review process, which if shown to be unsuitable in content the article is removed from the Examiner site. Granted, it is not rigorous pre-publication editorial control, but there is some oversight. - 70.194.133.72 (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    squidoo.com on Nanny cam

    squidoo.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

    • www.squidoo.com/nannies-caught-by-nanny-cam-and-busted

    Request single page to be added to Nanny cam, because this article is well sourced and is not spam. It shows examples of nanny cam used in final rulings to convict acts of child abuse. The article quotes exerts from news reports, links to the original report with third party video. It seems the goal of the article is to suggest not using a nanny cam to catch child abuse, and instead prevent child abuse - a suggestion which is sourced in a CBS video report also found on the page. This article should be added to the Nanny cam external links section.--Spygenie (talk) 08:07, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined, see /Common requests. Squidoo.com pages are self-authored with minimal editorial control, thus fails WP:RS. Suggest citing the CBS report and any other reliable reports directly. Stifle (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    smashinginterviews.com (again)

    Requesting that this URL be removed from the blacklist. Not quite sure why this one is being blocked, It is a well-respected and notable magazine, including interviews with high-profile people. Any help would be appreciated here. Boboman360 (talk) 18:00, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. This page is for requesting white-listing of specific links, not whole domains. There's also a decline request below for smashinginterviews; see that to get an idea of the burden the nominator must meet. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/wiki-edits-in-national/gregory-kohs

    The Wikipedia page Gregory Kohs discusses at length how the subject publishes criticism of Wikipedia, but we are not allowed to link to the subject's publication, which seems a bit preposterous. Readers who visit Gregory Kohs may be expected to want to read more of the aforementioned criticism, at least from an "External links" section. I have read the reasons why Examiner.com links are generally blacklisted (due to overpromotion by Examiner authors who are compensated by traffic), but I am happy to proceed with this request, because adding the link will not likely amount to more than a dozen or so click-throughs per month, which is worth a few cents at most to an Examiner writer. - 70.194.133.72 (talk) 19:43, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    I have reason to suspect that this IP address is Gregory Kohs. White-list requests generally aren't done based on COI requests. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:35, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined. Along with what Amatulic says, we don't normally consider requests from new and unregistered users. Whitelisting may be considered when a trusted, high-volume user requests it. Stifle (talk) 19:51, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Vaccines Can Prevent Cancers

    URL: www.winarticles.net/vaccines-can-prevent-cancers/

    External link for: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cancer_vaccine

    Hello there. I'm just wondering if you could whitelist (remove from blacklist) that single page because I really find it interesting and it's really worth being listed on wikipedia. Also, it has some interesting information worth being known by everyone.

    Looking forward for your decision. Thank you and have a great day, also I'd like you to know that I really respect the community of Wikipedia!

    Jaycee Lee Dugard kidnapping and rape on 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 www.examiner.com/article/jaycee-dugard-reappears-18-years-after-abduction-updates-arrests-searches

    I need this linked article as a reference for a wikipedia article I am writing. The examiner.com article refereced is not a puff piece nor is it spam. Please whitelist it. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 02:00, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. Google search reveals thousands of more reliable sources that basically say the same thing as the examiner.com article. Here are a bunch from the New York Times, for example: http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/d/jaycee_dugard/index.html
    I see nothing unique about this examiner article that warrants whitelisting. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:54, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I see no reason to blacklist it. It's a good solid article. It does contain unique information that is germane to a Wiki article I am drafting. Please whitelist this URL only. Thank you. Checkingfax (talk) 04:38, 18 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I concur with Amatulic.  Not done Stifle (talk) 19:59, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Article on Hanging Lake Colorado

    youtu.be: 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 video shows Hanging Lake and the hike up to the Lake. A high quality video for people to watch if they are thinking about visiting the Lake, but would like to see more of it before they decide to go.

    URL: youtu.be/pXVLIHGM4n8

    ARTICLE: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanging_Lake 24.225.21.211 (talk) 02:05, 20 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    This is a redirect, you can use the full link http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pXVLIHGM4n8 .. though I think it is not something that will pass WP:ELNO. We are not a service for people who 'would like to see more of it before they decide to go', there are other websites for that. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:37, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Free PDF of Euclid's Elements

    lulu.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

    • www.lulu.com/content/11581073

    This is a freely downloadable PDF file edition, although the entire site is a commercial self-publishing site. The file is originally intended for sharing, and an excerpt from the older version of that file is used in Wikipedia article(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Euclid-proof.svg, used in http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euclid's_Elements). I had uploaded it to that self-pub site on the request that it be available in printed form as well, by some people on an online community. The site used to display the free downloadable file along with the printed edition, on the current link. Now that it only shows the printed edition, I was going to change the link to the free downloadable edition, but the entire site was blacklisted, thus I'm led here. Mingshey (talk) 10:11, 21 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Sure, fine that it is free, but there are better places where it can be uploaded which are do not have the commercial problems associated with lulu.com (sites that do not give a financial incentive to have your links somewhere). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    What about WikiSource? --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 24 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined, suggest uploading to Wikisource. Stifle (talk) 20:02, 28 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

    Examiner.com on cotton candy

    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

    • examiner.com/article/december-7-is-cotton-candy-day

    Request single page to be added to cotton candy as a reference, it is the only source of information regarding whether cotton candy is mainly air. The page is mainly about the subject of air in cotton candy. Coolboygcp (talk) 00:08, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    How is this article a reliable source? MER-C 11:53, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
     Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 17:17, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    IWA Water Wiki on sewage treatment page

    The IWA water wiki contains information on sewage treatment processes from the nearest thing there is to an international body on sewage (and water) treatment. referencing this in the external links for sewage treatment & the entry on the IWA itself seems reasonable for making more information available. 213.253.35.226 (talk) 11:01, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    What link on what domain are you talking about? If you leave off the 'http://' from the beginning of the link, you will be able to add it and save it here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 5 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Done it in a kludgy manner on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Water_Association#External_links 213.253.35.226 (talk) 13:47, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I removed that again, tracking now above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:03, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • This appears to be no longer relevant; will close. Stifle (talk) 17:19, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.bet-at-home.com

    bet-at-home.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 This is the homepage of Bet-at-home.com, and thus it should be enabled for this page. It is plain stupid, that an internet redirect page is needed. Armbrust The Homunculus 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    It is linked from the page. I agree, we should whitelist a 'index.htm' here. Bet-at-home was spammed in the past.
    Note, casino-review.org is NOT an internet redirect page, it is an affiliate spam site:
    I would be favourable actually to de-listing bet-at-home on meta, it has legitimate use now cross-wiki. Unfortunately, old requests for that were never done in a serious way. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    www.iaemagazine.com/feed/Vol2iss9/brian-malouf-vp-walt-disney-records.html

    iaemagazine.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I would like to use this interview link as one source for a new page, the subject of which is music producer, mixer, and record executive Brian Malouf. The interview, which I can't find anywhere else, includes specific pieces of information that are relevant to his biography (how he got his start, working with Michael Jackson, etc) and which would corroborate generic discography lists. --Adamstrangelove (talk) 19:42, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • This appears to be a valid request. Stifle (talk) 17:25, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com - 2 links

    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 I see Examiner.com being denied a lot on here, but one was allowed because it was an interview with the subject of the article it was to be used on. That is my same situation, the two articles that I want to use are original interviews; www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-yoshiki-of-x-japan & www.examiner.com/article/interview-with-kaoru-and-die-of-dir-en-grey-on-the-band-s-dum-spiro-spero-tour. I'd like to use them on X Japan; the first because it explicitly comes from a band member and says that they left the Sony record label specifically because Atlantic offered them a worldwide deal; and the second because a member of Dir En Grey says they were inspired by X Japan, so I'd like to include it in the Influence section. Xfansd (talk) 01:52, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    That interview with Yoshiki is one of the more useless, cryptic, and content free interviews I have seen. This is not a high quality source.
    http://www.billboard.com/biz/articles/news/global/1310471/reunited-x-japan-confirm-us-europe-dates says that the group signed a worldwide deal with Atlantic in 1992. It seems obvious that a band who had not published outside of Japan would sign onto a record label offering a worldwide deal.
    According to http://www.sequentialtart.com/article.php?id=2124, X Japan cofounder Yoshiki helped create Dir En Gray. The Wikipedia article on Dir En Gray even says Yoshiki wrote songs for the band. I don't see the "inspiration" factoid brought forth in an interview as relevant, given the intertwined history of both bands and their members.
    I'm not convinced these links need whitelisting because alternatives appear to be available. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:10, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    I agree it is not a particularly informative interview, hence I was only going to use it for that one part. I just thought since its coming straight from a member that they "left" (not dropped or contract expired) the label specifically because another offered a worldwide deal, that it is a more useful source than one that just says they signed to a new label. To say that Yoshiki "created" Dir en grey is way more credit than deserved, just like their article says he arranged and produced a couple of early songs. I don't see how you think the inspiration factoid is irrelevant though, it is common practice to add such info to bands' articles. Maybe you meant that the inspiration was fairly obvious, therefore there's no need for this one source? I guess I was just trying to use sources that flat-out say these things from the band members, rather than ones that simply report them. As long as no one tries to split hairs because of that and tries to have those parts removed from the X Japan article I can live without the Examiner sources. Xfansd (talk) 19:04, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    It seems reasonable to approve this request. Stifle (talk) 17:26, 11 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    FluorideAlert.org (again)

    WWW.FluorideAlert.org should be white listed. It is the most complete and professional reference on the problems with water fluoridation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jfb102455 (talk • contribs) 18:23, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    You're not the first who has tried to get this extremely fringe website accepted, but there are ZERO good reasons for doing so. You've been answered quite nicely here:
    Talk:Water fluoridation controversy#Fluoride Alert Network (FAN) embodies the controversy and banning it is form of censorship.
    Contrary to your claim that the Water fluoridation controversy article has "not one atom of the fluoride controversy in this article,"[9] it actually documents the controversy quite well, using much more reliable sources than FAN, "a Mom and Pop organization, being run by a undistinguished (largely unpublished) and undecorated (zero national awards) professor retired from a tiny college together with his son and his wife."[10] -- Brangifer (talk) 22:06, 21 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or stale requests

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    Discussion

    What is taking so long?

    I want to cite Blythe. Do we need more moderators here?TCO (talk) 23:29, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Perennial problem, but the answer is: Yes. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:27, 19 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Gymnastics Examiner still not processed 3 months later. Did you all change your mind? There is no funny business. It has a very sober tone. Is run by a journalist who has press passes to major events (the USAG federation uses social media...Wiki should even look into some liason for photos). I'm not a political POV person or someone trying to make money or the like.TCO (talk) 16:29, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Gymnastics Examiner still not working

    This request was marked as approved (with some note of wait for someone to implement) on 03MAR. It remained like that for several months. It was now just recently archived along with a general page cleanup. I went and tested a link and it is still not working. Help.

    TCO (talk) 01:33, 1 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Shortage of people actively maintaining the white and blacklists. I have now  Done this addition. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:05, 1 July 2013 (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=563012686"