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 16:49, 3 February 2015 (→‎Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock): several updates). 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|645471677#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}}

    Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards

    If you have a source that you would like to add to the spam-whitelist, but you are uncertain that it meets Wikipedia's guideline on reliability, please ask for opinions on the Reliable sources noticeboard, to confirm that it does meet that guideline, before submitting your whitelisting request here. In your request, link to the confirming discussion on that noticeboard.

    Likewise, if you have an external link that you are uncertain meets Wikipedia's guideline on external links, please get confirmation on the External links noticeboard before submitting your whitelisting request here.

    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 achieve consensus at one of the above noticeboards.

    Proposed additions to Whitelist (web pages to unblock)


    whale.to

    whale.to: 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

    Link to Whitelist == www.whale.to/b/hitler_was_a_vegetarian_myth..html Explanation why page should be useful: The page www.whale.to/b/hitler_was_a_vegetarian_myth..html is directly relevant to the Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Hitler_and_vegetarianism and should probably be white-listed at the root level whale.to unless somebody knows something I don't. The link provides detailed information about Adolf Hitler's vegetarianism and some very publicised myths about him. For this reason, I need to use it as a reference. It seemingly does not contain any spam information. I do not know the original reason for blacklisting.

    Thanks & expecting you understand me 220.245.49.25 (talk) 02:25, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The link appears to be to material copied from Hitler: Neither Vegetarian Nor Animal Lover, by Rynn Berry - and accordingly a copyright violation. Even if it wasn't a copyvio, Berry isn't a historian, and accordingly he is not a reliable source regarding Hitler - this is just another example of no true Scotsman-style argumentation by a vegetarian activist. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:59, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied, copyvio, non-reliable source, take your pick. Stifle (talk) 12:40, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    htcampus.com

    htcampus.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

    Link to Whitelist == www.htcampus.com/college/central-institute-road-transport/ == Link to be on Wikipedia Page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Institute_of_Road_Transport Explanation why page should be useful: The page www.htcampus.com/college/central-institute-road-transport is directly relevant to the Wikipedia page en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Institute_of_Road_Transport and should probably be white-listed at the root level htcampus.com unless somebody knows something I don't. This link provides updated Road Transport information in Central Institute of Road Transport along with information about college, courses offered, placements, facilities (hostel, library, and classroom), and faculty members. It will be informative enough to the aspirants looking for admission in this college. Also this link provides all relevant information at one place looking for admission in this college. This website deals with colleges & courses across the country India and appears to me to be both useful and without any particular problems. I do not know the original reason for blacklisting & may be someone listed by intention. I was going to delete the link but on second thoughts may it potentially useful resource for aspirants of that particular course. May be few of other website links is of businesses advertising themselves but most websites pages are informative enough or done by its competitors’ itself which is hard to control. This website is not listed at /common requests.

    Thanks & expecting you understand us Msvini — Preceding unsigned comment added by Msvini12 (talk • contribs) 07:59, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am minded to approve this request unless someone posts to indicate a good reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:42, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved Stifle (talk) 16:37, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    historyofnations.net

    historyofnations.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

    The page, History of Solomon Islands at www.historyofnations.net/oceania/solomonislands.html is directly relevant to the page History of Solomon Islands and should probably be white-listed at the root level historyofnations.net unless somebody knows something I don't. Generally, the site deals with country histories and appears to me to be both useful and without any particular problems. I do not know the original reason for blacklisting and the hsitory of this may throw some light on it. I was going to delete the link but on second thoughts decided it was a potentially useful resource for those researching the topic. Ex nihil (talk) 12:42, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I have a similar problem with www.historyofnations.net/europe/albania.html, a useful source in Albanian Rebellion of 1997. I don't see any problem with this link either, and it's not on the common-requests list. Thanks for your help and all the best, Miniapolis 18:07, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Also the same with http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_Grenada and historyofnations.net grenada

    Perhaps the domain itself needs to be whitelisted. I can't even show the link that is blocked here as it is blocked here too (!) Jago25 98 (talk) 12:37, 10 August 2014 (UTC)jago25[reply]

    That site was blocked because it was claimed that that site uses Wikipedia information (sometimes without attribution) and was linked from Wikipedia as 'extra information' - which, if it is true, it is obviously not. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:42, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    As an example: compare www.historyofnations.net/africa/benin.html's section 'Post-Independence Politics' with History of Benin's section 'Post-colonial Benin'; though one must consider diff by User:Calliopejen1 with historyofnations.net's 'This site is (c) 2004. All rights reserved.' - where it may be that the ball is actually on the other side. But then .. the diff on Wikipedia has (inline) references whereas the historyofnations.net page does not, as well as extra paragraphs in the discussed section. That ref leads to http://www.state.gov/outofdate/bgn/benin/196482.htm - which contains text similar as the two paragraphs in the diff that is not from historyofnations.net. I think someone else needs to scratch their head on this one, User:MER-C: are there copyvio issues, and if there are, on which side do they appear to be? --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:05, 10 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I can see nothing wrong with this web site. There may be a few links to businesses advertising themselves but most sites have such links. A lot of the content in History of Equatorial Guinea seems to come from the subpage africa/equatorialguinea.html I think there are no problems with the site and the blacklist entry should be ignored. Jodosma (talk) 08:43, 16 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There does not need to be something wrong with this web site, that it was blacklisted generally means that it was abused on Wikipedia. I do note again that what is published on historyofnations.net is not necessarily adding anything that could/should not be covered on Wikipedia, and often, it simply does not add anything that Wikipedia already has (it simply is exactly the same on both ends ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:57, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Based on this discussion, it appears to me that this site should not be considered a WP:RS, since it publishes information gleaned from Wikipedia, which is also not considered a reliable source for citing in articles. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:46, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied, not a reliable source. Stifle (talk) 12:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    dot.tk

    dot.tk: 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 an appropriate link in the articles Tokelau and .tk, as revenue from the domain forms a significant part of the Tokelauan economy. I have no problem with it being blacklisted on all other articles. It may be sufficient to whitelist only www.dot.tk/en/doc_tcfree_v360.pdf (the terms and conditions document) for Tokelau, but both this and the base url are needed for .tk.-gadfium 00:48, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    Please see /Common requests - we need a index.htm or about page (I prefer not to use the pdf as the landing page, that may be a bit too much, though if you need it as a reference, then we add that as well). Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:40, 9 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    www.dot.tk in general should be whitelisted as it is run by a government entity. The landing page is a place users can register, the PDF and other links as noted in the .tk page are of use to potential users as well as casual users. Furthermore, it should be argued that .tk in general should not be globally blacklisted as it is a valid normal TLD and it is discouraging to potential users to have it blanket-blacklisted rather than building a more appropriate blacklist of offending links. 198.164.211.229 (talk) 20:49, 3 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think it belongs on Tokelau (reading up; this is not the official website of Tokelau!), it may belong indeed on .tk (it is the official homepage of the domain). Indeed considering \dot\.tk$.
    No, .tk should be blacklisted, since really the far, far majority of their sites are 'redirect' sites (in different forms). There is generally only very little information really hosted on sites on .tk, and what there is is then often also of very limited use (one page on one wiki). It are often the not too notable subjects that get their own .tk and often those subjects have those pages 'redirected' to their free webspace server www.blah.com/user/web/<subjectname> (for which they want an 'own' url), and even if they do host their material completely on .tk, the reason that they don't get their own .com (or whatever tld) is that they are small and don't want to spend all that money for registration. Wikimedia would not use a .tk either, they buy wikimedia.org. Blacklisting the offending links is a solution, but we keep running after the (albeit sometimmes good-faith, sometimes good-faith but unintentionally promoting, sometimes maliciously spamming) editors cleaning up their material. Whitelisting is more efficient, and it seems we don't have any .tk whitelisted (suggesting that the rules only catch very few really needed cases). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:20, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Regardless of whether .tk as a whole should be blacklisted, any of the current links on the .tk article are legit and should be whitelisted. The current situation on that article is downright ridiculous. JulianFT (talk) 22:18, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed, the .tk article is currently complaining about it's own registrar. Maybe not .tk, but the actual website www.dot.tk should probably be whitelisted. Anish7 (talk) 21:43, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As remarked earlier, please see /Common requests: please give an index.htm or about-page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:06, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: whitelisting dot.tk shouldnt cause any issues as you cannot register subdomains of that. only other *.tk domains. Werieth (talk) 18:55, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done for now: Per Dirk, please give an index.htm or about-page. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 16:55, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Technical 13: You are not qualified to make the close. An index.php isnt needed whitelisting dot.tk will not cause the issues that /Common requests causes. Whitelisting a specific domain, when a TDL is blacklisted will not cause any issues. Whitelisting a specific domain which is proven to be acceptable shouldnt be this much of a headache. Werieth (talk) 17:53, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What exactly disqualifies me from closing this request again? There is no policy saying that a non-administrator can't close requests for changes to interface messages. An administrator answered that without a usable landing page, this will not be added to the whitelist. So, I'd say either come up with a suitable landing page, or quit asking. It is becoming fairly disruptive. Thank you. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    How about WP:CIR? You are the one being disruptive, whitelisting dot.tk will not cause the issues that Beetstra raised. Werieth (talk) 18:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. So, Werieth, you want to take Dirk to WP:AN/I for a WP:CIR review? He or she gave you an answer as an administrator. They also said that they think it should be on the blacklist instead of the whitelist so regardless of whether or not you think whitelisting dot.tk will not cause the issues that /Common requests causes, this request is still consensus which means that a consensus needs to be achieved before this edit request template can be used per WP:PER. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:37, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Technical 13: CIR Applies to you. Do not re-close this, I raised the issue with Beetstra and they never responded. With their lack of response I used the edit protected. Since you dont have the competence to actually fix the issue please stop responding to it. Repeatedly re-closing a request is disruptive especially when you where asked not to. Werieth (talk) 18:42, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, continuously reopening a request when it was has been closed telling you to obtain a consensus before reopening per the WP:PER policy is disruptive, but I'll go to AN and request a formal close by an administrator to make you happy. — {{U|Technical 13}} (e • t • c) 18:57, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Its a 5:1 ratio with the only person objecting is Beetstra. And the issue that he raised about possible redirects to other sites which happens with a random *.tk domains, with whitelisting dot.tk those problems dont exist. Werieth (talk) 19:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This conversation is spiraling out of control. Bottom line: Beetstra already told Werieth that a URL path is needed. And because none was provided, Technical 13 was not out of line in closing this.

    However, in keeping with standard practice here, we generally whitelist an 'about' page for a blacklisted domain. I agree with Beetstra that an actual URL path is needed, and I do not see any reason to trust the dot.tk company to never offer subdomains, since they seem to be in the business of selling .tk domains. Therefore, I am willing to whitelist www.dot.tk/en/aboutdottk.html in keeping with our standard practice. If that is not acceptable, then it's best to close this section as declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:06, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Dot.tk has been around for a very long time in a stable format selling TLDs .tk's If at some point they do start selling sub-domains, which I really doubt they will the whitelist can be adjusted then. Until such a time we shouldn't have to whitelist specific URLs. Its similar to the co.uk TLD there are a lot of bad apples, but when a known good domain is identified we shouldnt have to dick around with every link on a trusted site. Whitelisting \bdot.tk\b is a specific URL. They have been in operation for years without using subdmains of *.dot.tk. If you really want specific URLs I listed a few below. But seriously your blocking a domain registrar with no history of abusive behavior by themselves (just abuse by clients who spammed links to whatever their specific site is), for what reason? In fear of something which has a very very small possibility of ever happening? Werieth (talk) 19:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    http://dot.tk/en/index.html?lang=en http://www.dot.tk/en/doc_disputepolicy_v300.pdf http://www.dot.tk/en/doc_tcfree_v350.pdf http://www.dot.tk/en/doc_tcfree_v360.pdf http://www.dot.tk(?![/:]) http://www.dot.tk/en/dottk_pressrelease_12272011_en.pdf http://www.dot.tk/en/pagef00.html http://www.dot.tk/en/policies.html PS, dot.tk has been around since 1997, thats 17 years of a track record for not using sub-domains. You really think that they are going to make such a radical change? and so what if that happens all we have to do then is remove the whitelist entry which isnt that big of a deal. Werieth (talk) 19:40, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Whitelisting \bdot\.tk\b won't work because it will also let through any domain that happens to include *dot.tk, (like mydot.tk) which dot.tk does not own. We've had this problem before. That's why we need a specific path.
    (?<=//)www\.dot\.tk\b might work, however (we're using similar patterns in the blacklist to avoid some false hits). Since Beetstra originally answered here, I'd like him to comment before any action is taken. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually that is incorrect, \bdot\.tk\b does not whitelist *dot.tk. the \b is a word boundary, mydot.tk wouldnt be allowed. Werieth (talk) 20:46, 5 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the hyphen, sorry. I meant my-dot.tk would still be allowed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:05, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Then, (?!-)\bdot\.tk\b should do it. Werieth (talk) 00:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    tanners-wines.co.uk/

    This site was blacklisted in February 2008 when it was hacked. However it is now safe and well maintained. There is a wikipedia page here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tanners_(company) which from a usability perspective would benefit from a link to the actual Tanners site. Having requested that the site be removed from the blacklist it was suggested by User:Beetstra that I apply for the whitelisting of an about page- thusly I request that the page tanners- wines.co.uk/tanners-story be whitelisted. CCarson789 (talk) 16:04, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hacked? No, it was spammed. That is something completely different, it may have been hacked, but I don't see that as the reason why it was blacklisted.
    I get to www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story, tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story seems to redirect to the top level. I'll leave this up for a second opinion. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:16, 21 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thank you for your consideration. Has there been any news on the second opinion? User:Beetstra CCarson789 (talk) 10:20, 17 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    When I go to www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story it doesn't redirect to the top. I would like to know what Beetstra is seeing before we make a decision here. If it's now working fine for other admins, I have no objection to whitelisting www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:51, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Has there been any further news on this request? User:Beetstra User:Amatulic CCarson789 (talk) 08:45, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It's been over 2 months since we have had any update on the whitelisting of this page (www.tanners-wines.co.uk/tanners-story). Please can you inform me on the latest news regarding this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CCarson789 (talk • contribs) 08:23, 2 June 2014 (UTC) CCarson789 (talk) 08:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The URL of the top page is www.tanners-wines.co.uk/index.php ; how about whitelisting this? (This is not a request; it's merely a question/suggestion.) -- Hoary (talk) 13:42, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Approved, will be added in next page update run. Stifle (talk) 12:44, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    business-review\.com\b

    http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/companies/gentiva_health_services_inc

    This page offers summarized information on Gentiva Health Services. I see nothing wrong with the page. It offers news and updates from the pharmaceutical industry. The site focuses on prescription drugs Theses updates include new drug research, new regulations, company news, industry news. The site offers information regarding industry regulations. There are pages on medical devices, packing regulations, inward investments, medical automation advancements, research, service and clinical trials, drug rules, news, and regulations, as well as a page on drug production and manufacturing. I read the above mention of the page, but still believe the information to be helpful at least as a starting place for more research. For these reasons, I request that all http://www.pharmaceutical-business-review.com/ Pharmaceutical Business Review pages, (pages categorized as business-review\.com\b), and all related pages are white listed. Thanks! Aeroplanepics0112 (talk) 16:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined. I would approve specific pages on a page-by-page basis but not the entire domain. In any event, I need a specific link or regex to whitelist and cannot whitelist "all related pages". Stifle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    nasty bot - www.andtan.newmail.ru/list/

    What is wrong with:

    • www.andtan.newmail.ru/list/

    It should not be kicking up problems on article pages for busy people who have plenty of other things to do to try to deal with, chaee down wrong paths, etc. Fix the bot or at least get this site off the blacklist. What a pain in the butt this bot crud is. P0M (talk) 06:39, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The bot perfectly pointed you to the right place, and has rightfully shown you that there is a link that is in use that is blacklisted. As links are generally blacklisted because they were abused, can you tell us why you think that this link should be whitelsited? Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:07, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This is globally blacklisted due to newmail.ru; see m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archives/2011-01#newmail.ru. I would suggest to locally whitelist the specific link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:12, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I checked the site. It has no spam and it didn't do anything to my Macintosh computer. P0M (talk) 12:20, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I can't reproduce the problem but I went from the article https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linyphiidae to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Cyberpower678/spam-exception.js
    It was very late at night after about a week trying to deal with a recalcitrant editor disrupting another page, so I do not remember which link or series of links led to that page. Evidently it is working o.k. now. Even so, the template for that bot's announcement might be improved. When I looked at it now all I could think to do was to try each link. None of them lead here, by the way, at least not directly. Hopefully I will never have to deal with this stuff again. P0M (talk) 12:34, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The link left on the page is to Template:Blacklisted-links - which explains you which actions to take, with a preference to ask for whitelisting, but alternatively de-blacklisting. I think that is a better solution than sending people directly to the whitelist, because, maybe, de-blacklisting is a better solution.
    This is not about the site containing spam, this is about the site being spammed/abused/pushed, which happened for newmail.ru. The site in question indeed looks fine, hence my suggestion to whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:42, 11 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please can we confirm the precise URL to whitelist? Stifle (talk) 16:41, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    homelesshub.ca/

    I do not understand why I am unable to use this very importance, Toronto's York university-based source for related articles on homelessness in Canada, poverty in Canada, affordability of housing in Canada. Stephen Gaetz, Alex Himelfarb are acclaimed academics in Canada in these areas. Those who receive SSHRC grants are acknowledged in the academic community. They are on the Board of Canada's equivalent of the National Alliance to End Homelessness.oceanflynn 16:27, 12 February 2014 (UTC)

    You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined, feel free to resubmit with a specific site in mind. Stifle (talk) 12:45, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    preposterousuniverse.com

    preposterousuniverse.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

    Links to add:

    • preposterousuniverse.com/
    • preposterousuniverse.com/eternitytohere/
    • preposterousuniverse.com/naturalism2012/
    • preposterousuniverse.com/particle/
    • preposterousuniverse.com/teaching/moments04/
    • preposterousuniverse.com/writings/nd-paper/

    Used on page:

    preposterousuniverse.com is Sean M. Carroll's personal site, and the blacklisted links notice at the top of his Wikipedia article caused him to post at Cyberpower678's talk page about it. The site seems obviously appropriate to link to from his article, as it can be used as a primary source for statements by him etc., as well as for the link to his official site. However, according to the edit summary from when the site was blacklisted, it was being used by multiple spambots. So whitelisting is probably the best way to go about this. — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 04:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why do you need so many links? Stifle (talk) 12:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    cbronline

    cbronline.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

    All entries removed in this edit to RS/6000. All are RS and the only sources for that info presently on the page; no evidence they were added as spam. List of links:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_ready_to_ship_tadpoles_powerpc_book
    • www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_joins_workstation_price_war_with_4000_rs6000_m20
    • www.cbronline.com/news/rs6000_offers_32_bit_kickers_nc_support_no_re_branding
    • www.cbronline.com/news/ibms_bonuspak_for_os390_provides_set_of_internet_tools_full_protection_from_the_year_2000
    • www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_aix_launch_more_waffle_than_hard_facts

    The above were initially added by User:Rilak some 5 years ago. Someone not using his real name (talk) 17:13, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Also I'd like three entries on a different page (NEC V60) to be whitelisted

    • www.cbronline.com/news/nec_launches_v80_answer_to_intels_80486
    • www.cbronline.com/news/digital_research_launches_flexos_286_real_time_manufacturing_operating_system
    • www.cbronline.com/news/nec_may_have_the_edge_with_its_930000_transistor_v80_answer_to_intels_80486 (this is liked through a google cached version)

    I've added the last three because no online alternatives could be found to cite these facts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 14:59, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Another existing link in Locus Computing Corporation:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/ibm_taps_locus_for_key_aux_unix_features_tcf_file_system

    Sole reference for some facts. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:19, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In VAXstation, a similar situation exists with RS/6000 (page almost entirely written by User:Rilak), with several CBR news pieces being the sole references for the introduction dates of various models etc. Links:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/dec_claims_wipeout_for_sun4_with_3100_europe_will_have_its_own_ms_dos_machines
    • www.cbronline.com/news/dec_creates_workstation_animators_designers_crave_with_87700_vaxstation_8000
    • www.cbronline.com/news/dec_stresses_applications_portability_better_price_performance_than_risc_with_new_vaxes
    • www.cbronline.com/news/dec_vax_model_60_price_announcements
    • www.cbronline.com/news/three_microvax_iis_support_8250_in_dec_vaxstation_8000

    No evidence these were added as spam. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In Altos Computer Systems

    • www.cbronline.com/news/acer_finally_unifies_altos_computer_systemslines_with_its_own_creating_the_aceraltos_series

    Could not find another online source for this fact. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:38, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In HP 9000, the following links are used as inline citations in some confusing style (just the title given inline, then the links given in the ref section). The problem can't be fixed until the following are whitelisted:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/adds_new_workstations_industrial_unix_packages
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_has_first_vme_single_board_risc_computer
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packards_gecko_line_due_later_this_month_to_feature_precision_architecture_risc_7100lc_1
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_71260_station_offers_stunning_spec_for_4000
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_adds_742rt_hp_rt_operating_system_hard_hat_700s
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_adds_board_level_hp9000_742i
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_announcements_8
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_fortifies_its_unix_mid_range
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_fuels_drive_to_low_end_unix_invades_suns_commercial_ground_1
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_unleashes_its_rs6000_killers
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hewlett_packard_unveils_d_class_general_purpose_servers_to_replace_the_e_class_models
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hp_launches_commercial_pa_8000_lines
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hp_launches_mid_range_9000_with_1mb_of_cache_memory
    • www.cbronline.com/news/hp_overhauls_its_low_end_unix_servers_with_the_pa_7300lc_1
    • www.cbronline.com/news/mpower_multimedia_software_accompanies_new_hp_9000_700s

    The HP 9000 page/citations are also mostly the work of User:Rilak. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:45, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    In UNIX System V, the following is cited with a commented out link:

    • www.cbronline.com/news/unix_international_reviews_the_unix_system_v4_story_so_far

    There's also an off-line book cited for the same fact, but verification is a bit more difficult that way. Someone not using his real name (talk) 15:53, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Admin: I created a copy-paste-able list of these over at User:Qwertyus/cbr-whitelist. I omitted the last link because it's already in the whitelist. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 17:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    smashinginterviews.com/interviews/musicians/gary-wright-interview-the-dream-weaver-gets-connected-tours-with-ringo-starr

    smashinginterviews.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 page will be very useful for Gary Wright, Footprint and "Dream Weaver". Specifically, the interview contains Wright's explanation on the message behind his biggest hit, "Dream Weaver"; and, while offering valuable insight into his friendship with George Harrison, he gives details about a song he and Harrison wrote in 1971, ‘To Discover Yourself’. I've not read Wright discussing "Dream Weaver" in these terms (even in mid 1970s articles available on Rock's Backpages). And although mention of their collaboration "To Discover Yourself" is made at sites such as vintage rock.com, I've not seen such background on that song's creation before. Wright's replies regarding his pioneering use of the portable keyboard (particularly mentions of Edgar Winter's “Frankenstein”, the Arp 2600 keyboard, and Minimoog and Oberheim synthesizers) would all be great to include. The same with mention of him starring in Fanny on Broadway in 1954, with a pre-Brady Bunch Florence Henderson – details that are currently unsourced in the Gary Wright article. Thanks, JG66 (talk) 15:22, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The owners of smashinginterviews were found to have engaged in some bad behavior (spamming) back in 2010. As late as 2012, this similar request was declined. However, it's four years since the last instance of bad behavior that I can see. Perhaps the site itself should still be blacklisted, to prevent a repeat of 2010's behavior... but when an established and prolific content creator finds useful information on a specific page that isn't accessible elsewhere (as seems to be the case here), I'd be inclined to whitelist that specific page. If the site owners decide to spam that link in multiple pages where it isn't useful, then perhaps it could be revoked, but that really doesn't seem likely with an interview as specific as this one. – Quadell (talk) 15:51, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    AVFM notable author 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

    This was blacklisted in the past (discussion about this present on the AVFM article's talk) because some random IPs were spamming links to it. The official representatives of the site have clarified that they had no part in this and would ban such people from their site if they knew of them, but nonetheless the blacklisting remains.

    I would like to propose the selective whitelisting of notable authors (who have Wikipedia articles) who contribute articles there, so that these articles can be cited as sources on their individual articles, and possible elsewhere. I will link their names, their home author pages, and also the individual article pages I am hoping could be added to the whitelist.

    Warren Farrell at avoiceformen.com/author/warren-farrell

    • avoiceformen.com/education/equity-without-equity-universities-love-hate-relationship-with-men/ published 25 September 2013

    Erin Pizzey at avoiceformen.com/author/erin-pizzey

    • avoiceformen.com/a-voice-for-men/from-avfm-editor-at-large-erin-pizzey/ published 1 January 2013
    • avoiceformen.com/feminism/feminist-lies-feminism/mens-human-rights-supposed-hate-speech/ published 6 August 2013

    Even if the other pages by other authors not notable enough for Wikipedia articles remain blacklisted, I don't see why these ones should be. If we look into the circumstances surrounding the original blacklisting, I would question the specific pages linked to and whether they were actually by any of these 4. If they were by others besides them, then I see no reason why these notable works should remain black if the site was blackened due to the linking of different contributors. These are all new articles and the spam vandalism predates their publication, so I am confident they were not the ones used by the ones who provoked the blacklisting.

    Two other notables have also been interviewed in other articles on the site:

    Miles Groth:

    • avoiceformen.com/allbulletins/conversation-with-dr-miles-groth-on-the-need-for-male-studies/ published 27 January 2014

    Helen Smith (psychologist):

    • avoiceformen.com/men/mens-issues/dr-helen-smith-erin-pizzey-dean-esmay/

    Personally I think rather than blacklisting the whole site, if particular pages have been spammed, it should be possible to blacklist JUST those pages, taken up as individual issues. Keeping in mind that people opposed to an article may spam it to get it blocked, as opposed to someone in support of it spamming it to get it noticed. It doesn't seem right to do the whole site considering that. If someone were spamming a link to unrelated NYT articles I doubt we'd block the NYT site or even those individual articles, and instead take it up with the spammer. Ranze (talk) 19:36, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is no need to add a link to the author representative page on avoiceformen.com (we do not link all web presences for a subject, see WP:ELOFFICIAL). If there is need for using the other documents as a reference, that should be explained why this reference is needed for which article. Just listing/linking the article because the subject wrote it is also not a reason to add it to a page is also against our core policies and guidelines. Moreover, we are not going to whitelist without good reason why it needs to be used, it really needs to add value.
    It is likely often futile (this may be one of the few examples where it may be a case) to blacklist just the one page that was spammed (we do that for specific links on YouTube sometimes). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Wondershare Software

    wondershare.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 am creating an article on Wondershare Software that can be viewed in my user space (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:CNMall41/Wondershare_Software). When putting the website address in the information box, I was notified that the domain was on the blacklist. The purpose of placing the domain in the information box was to be in conformity with similar articles and also for readers to have a link to the actual site. I made the request to remove the domain at the global blacklist and was advised that I should come here and see if it was possible to whitelist the homepage of the website just for the information box. The request that I made was here. It appears that the domain was originally blacklisted along with numerous others during an investigation of someone using multiple accounts to spam links. I am not sure if this was on English Wikipedia or others or both. Just seeing if the homepage or the about page of the website can be whitelisted for the purpose of including it in the article. Please let me know what additional information is needed, if any, to complete this request. Thanks. --CNMall41 (talk) 03:39, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Could you provide the address of the about page, is it wondershare.com/about? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Great question. I looked at the site closer and cannot find one. It looks like there is the homepage and then product pages. --CNMall41 (talk) 02:19, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    bimeanalytics.com

    bimeanalytics.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 Hi there, I wonder if this link can be added to the whitelist ? Apparently it had "repeat attempts to spam Wikipedia" some time back. I would like to contribute to Wikipedia today now that I see that this company has numerous recognition appearances in the press ("BIME Analytics nabs 4m to simplify business intelligence". VentureBeat. Retrieved 2013-11-21., "French Cloud Computing firm picks KC". Business Journal. Retrieved 2013-10-30.). Thanks --User:Nephelai13 T C 15:02, 26 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:48, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    pickeringchatto.com

    This is the website of a reputable academic publisher whose notability has recently been re-established on its Wikipedia stub. The stub would benefit from the inclusion of this url in the company information box - because the url will provide an easy way of definitively verifying key information about the company, such as the location of its headquarters in Bloomsbury, London and the publication types it specialises in. Drguybh (talk) 14:07, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This site is part of the long-term abuse by Agora Publishing (who got most of their sites blacklisted, but are still active on Wikipedia promoting their business; see www.agora-inc.com/a-message-from-the-president and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Nov 1#Agora Publishing spam on Wikipedia - 2). I would therefore strongly suggest to whitelist an about-page only. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:21, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Noting that this article was AfCd by an account with only 5 edits, similar MO as some accounts in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam/2013 Archive Nov 1#Agora Publishing spam on Wikipedia - 2. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:32, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    It is true that this site has been abused in the past but this does not alter the fact that the subject is notable and that the article would be improved by the addition of the url for the reasons given above. The suggestion to whitelist only the 'contact' page seems to be the most reasonable compromise, taking account of both these facts. Drguybh (talk) 12:09, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: like user:Tomboulton5, and the IP users User:31.54.172.142 and user:81.152.128.193, also user:Drguybh is only editing on the subject Pickering & Chatto Publishers, having created User:Drguybh/Pickering & Chatto Publishers with exactly the same text as the current article in mainspace (internal copyvio?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:12, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am having a hard time understanding the suspicion surrounding this topic. There are explanations for all the facts pointed out above. I am only editing the page mentioned because, as is evident from the content of my few edits, it is a subject I know about. Everyone has to start somewhere and there is a limited amount of time I can devote to editing Wikipedia. I have deleted the draft version of the page in my user space in case it violates policies. For the record, I am not an employee of any publishing company. If I were, is it likely that I would be devoting my Sunday to spamming Wikipedia on their behalf? In any case the above points are distinctly ad hominem. The subject is still demonstrably notable and the article would still be improved by inclusion of a link to the publisher's contact page. No one above has suggested otherwise or provided an argument against whitelisting a restricted portion (at least) of the publisher's url. Drguybh (talk) 13:44, 30 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am only having concerns, Drguybh. The company, Agora Inc., which is related to Pickering & Chatto, has shown in the past a very aggressive form of spamming on Wikipedia, and seen related cases earlier, they are known to be still actively spamming Wikipedia, using accounts which are only used to edit one specific subject. That makes me concerned with any 'Single-Purpose' accounts related to their subjects, hence my notes.
    Also I have not objected against whitelisting, see my suggestion above. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:26, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Thanks for clarifying, user:Beetstra. I understand your concerns and agree with the above suggestion. Drguybh (talk) 10:35, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    So what's the status on this? 86.136.236.46 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 10:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    army-technology.com

    army-technology.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 The site provides excellent information on various projects related to military news, equipment and details from an organised and valid source but seems to have been blacklisted for an unknown reason. In this specific case, the Modern equipment of the British Army page will be greatly benefitted by it as it contains much pertinent information for said equipment and news of its acquirement.

    The specific links are the following:

    army-technology.com/projects/watchkeeper/

    army-technology.com/projects/springer-all-terrain/

    army-technology.com/projects/mbt_law/

    army-technology.com/contractors/machine_guns/fnherstal/press32.html

    army-technology.com/projects/future/

    support whitelisting. Blacklisting a huge number of links on a very large number of articles is completely unacceptable without discussion. Dormskirk (talk) 20:24, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Here are some more useful links:
    • www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/
    • www.army-technology.com/features/feature1616/feature1616-5.html
    Pdfpdf (talk) 00:18, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    mining-technology.com

    • mining-technology.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
    • Many, many article in the subcategories of in Category:Mines (some individual examples below)
    • Lots of articles on my watchilst just came up as showing blacklisted links (which I probably personally added). Mining-technology provides a wealth of information about various mining properties around the world. While there are links directing people to various mining suppliers available on the website (under the companies and products and services sections), the links that are used as references in articles about individual mines. The articles on the website provide information about the history and production rates/processes of many individual mines, and is used in, for example Batu Hijau mine, Kupol Gold Mine‎, and Kiruna Mine‎ (there are many others). I understand that many -technology domains are primarily spam/advertising websites, this one is pretty benign, and does provide a lot of information about a rather niche industry. --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:35, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • As an asiede, if there is a way to change it to mining-technology.com/contractors (and subpages of that) it would be fine, as that section is made up mostly of press releases/corporate profiles (which would be better sourced from the individual company websites, if they were deemed notable enough for an article.) --kelapstick(bainuu) 12:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.railway-technology.com

    This url is used appropriately in a number of articles on railways; on the three that are on my watchlist I ask that the following urls be whitelisted:

    • www.railway-technology.com/projects/-hitachi-super-express-trains-uk/ used on Intercity Express Programme, adds to the information in the other reference
    • www.railway-technology.com/projects/tyne/ used on British electric multiple units to give background information in the Tyne and Wear Metro
    • www.railway-technology.com/projects/perpignan/ used on LGV Perpignan–Figueres to give background information on that project.

    There were two others, but I updated those with new information. Edgepedia (talk) 17:26, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Support. Appropriately used.Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This subject is being discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Trains#Blacklisted website. This looks like a legitimate website to me with useful information. Many articles use it as a reference. I have added links to this before and I'm not a spammer. G-13114 (talk) 22:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support - this is a legitimate source which seems to have been blacklisted in error. Please whitelist as an authentic website. --Jza84 |  Talk  19:44, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Support whitelisting, would appear to have been blacklisted in error, it is a legitimate website Mo7838 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further legitimate content linked from Stadler_GTW, in the form of www.railway-technology.com/projects/stadler-gtw-articulated-railcars. The text of the R-T page provides detailed information on the GTW family that is not readily available elsewhere. The content is not spammy and, per copyscape, has not been scraped from elsewhere. I'm not familiar with the content of every -technology.com site operated by Kable, but railway-technology was a legitimate site when it opened and it still is. Even if other -technology.com sites are spam-like there is no good reason to forbid R-T. TheOtherEvilTwin (talk) 11:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • This has nothing to do with the content of the site - this has to do with the owners of the site (Kable/CBROnline) actively spamming Wikipedia with these links. That behaviour is in direct conflict with our core policies and guidelines and with the recently discussed suggested change to the Terms of Use of Wikipedia. That is enough reason to do something against them spamming. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • (Whitelist please) Is there actually any evidence of spamming on this specific domain? I've added references from railway-technology.com on several occasions, and have many railway related wiki-pages on my watch list. I don't recall any occasion on which a link was added to a wikipage from railway-technology.com on a rail related webpage that was not appropriate ie a specific needed inline reference. Most if not all of the warnings I have seen about this site on pages on my watchlist have been about links added by me. It goes without saying that I am not a spammer.83.100.174.82 (talk) 14:09, 17 April 2014 (UTC) (or Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC))[reply]
    • Comment I think the trains wikiproject members would be more than happy to keep an eye on and report/deal with any spamming from this or any other source (as already happens in my opinion).Prof.Haddock (talk) 14:11, 17 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.naval-technology.com

     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.roadtraffic-technology.com

    This url is used appropriately in a number of articles on road transport matters. Not sure why it was blacklisted. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.water-technology.net

    This url is used appropriately in a number of articles on water resevoir matters. Not sure why it was blacklisted. Dormskirk (talk) 23:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Support whitelisting. We should not blaclist websites without discussing with the affected Wikiprojects prior any action. Beagel (talk) 20:05, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If this is temporarily de-blacklisted, then why do I see "The following link has triggered a protection filter: water-technology.net" whenI try to save a link to this site? Wbm1058 (talk) 21:27, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: sorry, you missed this one. notice it's the last line in this diff. Regards, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:35, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, I am sorry, I missed 2 from the set, now commented out as well. My apologies. Now truly  On hold. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:42, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.power-technology.net

    This url provides several unique articles as references for Wiki-pages on electrical power. I see no wiki-offensive content on those urls. The url is owned by Kable, not sure if that is related to CBROnline. TGCP (talk) 19:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Bummer, Kable is the "new" CBR, and editors are not named. Whether content is sourced from the wrong places is beyond me, so I guess discussion should continue. Sad to see refs with good content going away because Kable is shady. TGCP (talk) 21:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Support that this site should be whitelisted. Dormskirk (talk) 10:12, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • support. It should be whitelisted as well as www.power-technology.com. Beagel (talk) 20:03, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.naval-technology.com/projects/collins/

    naval-technology.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

    Following the recent blanket blacklisting of external links to naval-technology.com and related sites, I would like to request that their page on the Collins-class submarine be added to the whitelist. This would allow the page's use as a reference in the class article (where it is cited at nine points), and in the articles on the six submarines in the class (cited in each article twice). Based on my understanding of the class, I consider the information on this webpage to be reliable. In addition, some of the information in these articles is solely cited to the webpage; I am unable to find any online or dead-tree sources that also publicly publish the information and could be used to replace the source. -- saberwyn 11:13, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    support whitelisting. Dormskirk (talk) 20:27, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.ship-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-10-biggest-ports/

    ship-technology.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 Want to use on Port of Rotterdam as it lists very well the recent tonnage per port and includes a listing of these ports. Could not find any reputable substitute. The website looks reputable. Kind regards, Timelezz (talk) 11:35, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     On hold - temporarily delisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:25, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.railway-technology.com/features/feature122751

    This link was tagged on the article 2011 Tōhoku earthquake and tsunami because the bot matched it to \brailway-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist, an obvious false positive. The site linked to is, indeed, all about rail technology; the specific article goes into much detail about how the rail system in Japan survived the earthquake and tsunami, and is a valuable addition to the article. I'm asking for this specific link to be whitelisted, but it might be a good idea to whitelist the domain as well, if that's feasible. railway-technology.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 - Gorthian (talk) 04:16, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    energy-business-review.com links for Golar Spirit

    • www.energy-business-review.com/news/petrobras_begins_lng_delivery_to_brazilian_power_units_300109
    • www.energy-business-review.com/news/golar_spirit_lng_regasification_vessel_heads_to_petrobras_pecem_terminal

    energy-business-review.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 Both these links have been long time used for the Golar Spirit article and provide necessary information for that article. They have been added by long-term editor (Beagel (talk · contribs)) for the purpose to verify information in that article and not for spamming. Beagel (talk) 18:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Both aggregated from the originals ('Petrobras said' - 'Petrobras announced' - though the originals are not quoted). The latter contains information which is quite similar to an original report http://www.golarlng.com/index.php?name=seksjon/Stock_Exchange_Releases/Press_Releases.html&pressrelease=1243371.html. Haven't found the first one yet (Petrobras may not have the old news reports where this is obviously coming from), maybe that one could be whitelisted. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:13, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.energy-business-review.com/News/denmark_and_poland_considering_gas_pipeline

    energy-business-review.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 link has been long time used for the Baltic Pipe article and provides necessary information for that article. It was added by long-term editor (Beagel (talk · contribs)) for the purpose to verify information in that article and not for spamming. Beagel (talk) 18:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Replaceable with http://energinet.dk/EN/GAS/Nyheder/Sider/PGNiG-SA,-GAZ–SYSTEMSA-and-Energinet.dk-sign-cooperation-agreement-to-build-pipeline-from-Poland-to-Denmark.aspx - the original report where this aggregator got the info from in the first place (cite your sources?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:51, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think you posted it under the wrong section. And I think here is a small difference of primary and secondary sources. Getting information from the source is not the same as reprinting the press release. Beagel (talk) 18:55, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The aggregator site has not more value than the original, and I would not believe the aggregator without finding where they got the information (which they did not cite). --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:02, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Policy, please? And this is not relevant when blacklisting pages (you block them for being spammers not because they are aggregators), so it can't be also relevant for whitelisting. Beagel (talk) 19:17, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:PRIMARY - primary sources can be fine. The secondary source you note does not cite where they sourced the information, is it really a WP:RS - it is only reliable because you can find the original source.
    Yes, they were blacklisted because they were being spammed - that they are not a WP:RS (I should find the discussions on the noticeboard for these sites) does not help, and that they are replaceable by more reliable sources did not help their cause, and still does not help their cause. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    But in this case it is not WP:PRIMARY. And sources are not automatically reliable or unreliable - this depends of the context. That is the core of WP:RS. It sounds as bias against certain publishers/certain websites. Beagel (talk) 19:33, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The news report from the company itself is the primary source - I would call that a reliable source (a company would not intentionally publish wrong statements about themselves). Per WP:PRIMARY, there is nothing against using primary sources (with the due care of primary sources - but 'Petrobras announced' is typical something that is allowed). The -business-review.com and -technology.com-sites basically rewrite (sometimes minimally) the primary source. They are a secondary source, but they do not link to the original source (as a note: they can not copy-paste the company info, and they don't, that would be copyright infringement, so they have to rewrite). So, how do we know that that is a reliable source - by looking at the primary source, which we know is reliable, and comparing. That needs to be done for every case that you use that secondary source, because most (if not all) of the articles do a) just rewrite those primary sources, and b) do not cite that source. Therefore, in every case that I have seen, the secondary source is not reliable until you checked the primary source. So why not cite the primary source, which you know is reliable, and this is information where it is not wrong to cite the primary source (I think I would compare it to my child saying to me 'but mommy said it was fine to eat the whole chocolate bar before dinner!' .. I would check the primary source anyway).
    Another secondary source, that actually sits in Trinidad and reports that they saw the ship in the harbour filling up with LNG (in one of these sections) would be a better, and independent, source for the fact that the boat took its first load in Trinidad (as announced by the company - a reliable, but still primary, source) or the rewritten report by one of these sites (only reliable if you know the primary source, and certainly not an independent determination of the facts). I note that such sources are not used (they exist, someone could see the harbour logs and check whether the ship was there, and cite that - and that is independently verifiable).
    So the determination needs to be made on a case-by-case basis, sure - but the four links you now requested for whitelisting are all the same type of re-reports (and I still have to see links where they are really independent determinations of the facts, as the Reuters you mentioned elsewhere would generally do - I think Reuters would call their people in Trinidad and ask if the ship came by - by the way, the ship went through Trinidad, not through Trinidad [á]nd Tobago ..), and three of them show that (the likely) originals are easily found (and probably also the other ones have originals somewhere to be found - maybe not online, but WP:V does not require sources to be available online anyway).
    Now, this is what these sites do, they go through the sites in their subject area and every time they produce a news-item, they re-publish that. Often they do nothing else than just that, it is their bread and butter. That is very handy (I use those sites professionally, I don't have to go through all the independent sites, and if I find it interesting, I go look at the original announcement). Now, an additional question to be asked (and I have reverted spammed reference-sections like that) is whether it is notable that a company had a ship moved from Singapore through Trinidad if only the company reports it in its news-section, and a site that just copies such news-sections and re-publishes them. It is true, verifiable, reliable, but not always notable. The existence of this secondary source does not make the fact notable (but it may be encyclopedic).
    If the majority of the site is like that (exhaustively shown, I did follow a couple of links and see similar reports and no independent reports), and it is massively spammed (this is a campaign active for what, 6-7 years now, multiple accounts, and the first wave of CBROnline spam did get user accounts blocked, that did not exactly stop them, did it? So did blocking the accounts solve the problem?) then such a site is certainly a candidate for blacklisting, even if it is (still) extensively used. That may put a load on quite some editors (a large number of editors, actually, and not only on the few that try to mitigate the problem of spam), but, I am sorry to say, most of these cases that were linked seem to me to be cases where I would have thought before using the source: 'Oh, did mommy say that, let me ask.' (just to note, in this case (Baltic Pipe) mommy was asked: the news-aggregator is cited next to the original source (darn, and I do all the work to find the original, that was already done). There is no loss in info if the 'b-source' (which is simply a duplicate, a rewrite, of the 'a-source' in all three instances where it is used) is removed. It has no extra value, the 'b-source' does not make the statement any more robust. --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We should be avoiding aggregation sites that rewrite news to avoid copyright issues, and otherwise summarise and change the effect of the news report. That a site is a regurgitated copy lessens its value. Far better to quote the original article. These domains remain a source of abuse, and having to unnecessarily whitelist when there is a better source available doesn't add up to me. — billinghurst sDrewth 15:57, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.energy-business-review.com/news/eesti_energia_outotec_to_form_oil_shale_processing_jv_171208

    energy-business-review.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 link had been until quite recently long time used for the Galoter process article and provided necessary information for that article. It was added by long-term editor (Beagel (talk · contribs)) for the purpose to verify information in that article and not for spamming. Beagel (talk) 18:43, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    The originals. --Dirk Beetstra T C 19:09, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Although www.energy-business-review.com has used these press releases as sources, it is not a reprint of the press releases and therefore accounts as a secondary source. It is a same as Reuters or AP create news based on the company press release but not reprinting it. Beagel (talk) 19:24, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I have to agree that in this case they have used a large blocks from the press releases. Beagel (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the bread and butter of these sites, that is how they operate. It is basically true for every single article (they may have different parts, but my initial scan of a couple of the use of these sites did not show sections where they do independent reporting; I have to admit that I did not a full analysis of all info on their site, but only the handful of links I checked). --Dirk Beetstra T C 20:34, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    As above, I support Beetstra's decision to not whitelist the domain. We can do better, and it is not the same as Reuters or AP, they have reputation and accreditation. This lot have nothing. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.jerseyusa.net

    This site is triggered by the NBA jerseys spam filter. If one visits the website is is clearly not spam, it is the Jersey County Historical Society. URL is present on Jerseyville, Illinois. Elassint Hi 15:38, 9 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm going to see if we can get some of those regexes revised -- see m:Talk:Spam blacklist#jerseyusa.net. MER-C 12:27, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    legoideas.uservoice.com

    uservoice.com seems to be blacklisted, but I need to cite legoideas.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/356073 as a reference on Lego Ideas saying that the later Minecraft sets are not Lego Ideas products. --George Barnick – Talk/Contribs 15:44, 23 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.andrewcripps.com.au/images/Speeches/Andrew%20Cripps%20spk%20Hinchinbrook%202008_02_12_102.pdf

    andrewcripps.com.au: 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 content relevant to the history of the Shire of Cardwell. It is on what I assume to be the official website of Andrew Cripps, the local parliamentarian for the district, which doesn't appear to have anything out of the ordinary, so I am unsure why it would be blacklisted as a site. Thanks 03:51, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

    Allow archive.org version of link

    I wanted to replace the reference in the footer with a link that still works on the article MS_Sans_Serif. The regex that caught it saw that "ascendercorp" was still in the URL, so it will not update. It looks like this URL was added to the "spam" list because sometime between 2008 and 2011 the domain was sold off to someone else.
    The reference should be updated to:

    2601:5:600:272:F4A0:4C02:E791:2128 (talk) 22:46, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Never mind, I figured out how to get Wikipedia to accept the URL in the process of posting this whitelist request. (remove the second http:// in the URL) 2601:5:600:272:F4A0:4C02:E791:2128 (talk) 22:54, 10 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Eh - there is a reason why ascendercorp.com is on the blacklist. Linking then to the archived version is not appropriate per WP:ELNEVER. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:43, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.metalwani.com/2013/12/interview-richard-henshall-on-hakens.html

    metalwani.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 tried to have this entire site unblocked, but it was denied. The link www.metalwani.com/2013/12/interview-richard-henshall-on-hakens.html is the only place I was able to find an explanation for the name of the band Haken (band), and therefore that is the only verifiable way I have to add a piece of information that, in my understanding, would certainly improve the article. Victão Lopes Fala! 20:45, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Request withdrawn per diff (undoing removal as previous requests may be informative for future requests from others). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Miami Jazz and Blues Examiner

    Site:

    I'd like to whitelist a particular page that is hosted by www.examiner.com. It is an article in the AXS Entertainment section of the Miami Jazz and Blues Examiner. This article has unique biographical and interview information including anecdotes that I have not been able to find in other research and I'd like to use it as a reference, even for just a small portion, of a musician page for Abbey Rader and Kenny Millions. Thank you for your consideration. Bodrad (talk) 05:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.oxfreudian.com

    Could someone kindly please whitelist this site so it may be listed in an "External links" section on Richard M. Waugaman's page? PDFs of several of Dr. Waugaman's articles are linked on his home page which would be of interest to various researchers. Thank you for your consideration in this matter. Knitwitted (talk) 19:33, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We are not going to whitelist the whole site - we can however whitelist an about page or similar. Please see /Common requests. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 5 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.justjared.com/2008/03/31/robin-williams-law-and-order-svu/

    I'm currently creating an article for a notable episode of Law & Order: Special Victims Unit here, and the justjared.com article is the only one I can find that mentions the episode was filmed in Bryant Park and Grand Central Station. I believe this information would be beneficial to the production section of the article. Thank you for your consideration. - JuneGloom Talk 21:55, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Can you tell us the full link (leave off the 'http://' and it will save here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:24, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it's the one in the heading: www.justjared.com/2008/03/31/robin-williams-law-and-order-svu/ for use in this draft/future article: User:JuneGloom07/Authority. - JuneGloom Talk 21:15, 17 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/comedian-rick-shapiro-marries-his-manager-outdoor-ceremony-new-jersey

    Site:

    • www.examiner.com/article/comedian-rick-shapiro-marries-his-manager-outdoor-ceremony-new-jersey

    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've been updating the article about Rick Shapiro over the past days. I'd like to whitelist the link to that specific article on examiner. I would use it as reference to add a sentence to the "private life" paragraph of the article Rick Shapiro, mentioning that he got married in 2013 to Tracy DeMarzo. The Examiner-article about Rick Shapiro getting married is the only online-source about the wedding - and it appears very reliable, with 20 photos of the event. ATuschinski (talk) 00:10, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined. There seem to be alternate sources for the simple fact that they married. this and this, for example. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    bcove.me/0xl7unfa

    The Wikipedia page that you want to use the link on: 14th Empire Awards

    An explanation why it would be useful to the encyclopedia article proper: This is a direct link to the nominated/winner of the official Done In 60 Seconds Award.

    The links to the videos are found on the official site and are not a pirated/illegal copy. I could not find any other links to these videos.

    Additional links:

    • bcove.me/2bvcpz1i
    • bcove.me/325x5pjt
    • bcove.me/8e933ikk
    • bcove.me/8x6vgp6n
    • bcove.me/95t61xcd
    • bcove.me/ejf2t1qe
    • bcove.me/g3ku24bz
    • bcove.me/krxr0xin
    • bcove.me/kzgu1tdv
    • bcove.me/mp8i8d5e
    • bcove.me/pylylzp6

    Gonnym (talk) 12:59, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    bcove.me is an url shortener, blacklisted on meta. Locally, we prohibit urlshorteners per WP:ELNEVER. I know that this is in our external links guideline, but the same reasoning we disallow url shorteners for external links goes here for references: there is simply no reason to use the shortened url when the full url is available, and shorteners are often 'used' to circumvent blacklisting.

    Please use the expanded url:

    --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:17, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Denied, we never allow URL shorteners. Stifle (talk) 12:48, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    petitiononline.com/help/goodbye

    1. Why the page should be whitelisted: Because the site is shutting down.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link: The article about PetitionOnline needs to be updated.

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. [[1]]

    examiner.com/article/exploitation-life-brad-jones-the-cinema-snob-redefines-internet-film-criticism

    I was wanting to use this link to update the new The Cinema Snob page, as it is an interview with Brad Jones that provides some useful information.

    Tony414 (talk) 21:08, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fisheaters.com (One Page) - One Article: Entry "Traditional Catholicism"

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

    I'm writing to request that there be allowed a link to a page at fisheaters.com on the entry "Traditional Catholicism." FishEaters is one of the, if not the, oldest traditional Catholic websites on the internet, it's used in RCIA classes (especially those organized by priests of the FSSP), it's cited in books, newspapers, parish bulletins, and magazines. The page I would like to link to: fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html All varieties of traditional Catholics would find the site helpful and informative, and Wikipedia visitors wanting to research traditional Catholicism" would find that page a scholarly jumping-off point. Thanks. Schoemann (talk) 05:38, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've moved this request down toward the bottom so it won't get lost in the shuffle, and renamed the heading to be more in accord with the guidelines. I hope both of these things are okay. Schoemann (talk) 06:43, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I say no to this, the domain was relentlessly spammed and there's likely to be a better source for anything of merit. The site is biased, as evidence the title of the very page requested: "traditional" rather than "traditionalist". Most Catholics are not of this view. Guy (Help!) 09:21, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure I understand you, Guy. "Traditional" and "Traditionalist" mean the same thing in the Traditional/ist Catholic world. They're known colloquially as "trads." The entry I'm wanting to add it to is the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism", and it's a traditionalist Catholic website. I know that most Catholics aren't of that view, but traditional Catholics are, the entry in question is "Traditionalist Catholicism," and the website is called "FishEaters: The Whys and Hows of Traditional Catholicism". I don't think there'd be a better source for the topic of Traditional Catholicism. The site is one of the oldest traditional Catholic websites on the internet, and it's used by priests and catechists, has been cited in magazines and books. I think the only traditional Catholic website that is older is one made by someone who goes by the name"Father Moderator", but he's a sedevacantist, which most traditional Catholics aren't. The FishEaters website is also extremely comprehensive and well-written. There really isn't another site like it that I've seen, and I, myself, am a traditionalist Catholic and know pretty well what's available out there in this area. Schoemann (talk) 09:39, 19 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I think that the site itself does provide good information and have never agreed to its being blacklisted. I also believe that the accusation of spamming is somewhat overboard. check out this discussion. --evrik (talk) 15:50, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Looking at old discussions about this, it looks as if the owner added links before there were any rules against it, way, way back in 2005. He argued that point, sought remediation against an editor who warred with him about his having added links, but got blacklisted in the middle of it all -- in essence, blacklisted for breaking a rule that then didn't exist (but does now). I think the site should be de-blacklisted, or at least the page fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html should be white-listed. Preferably, I'd like to add a link to the site itself (fisheaters.com with no specific page inside the site) to the entry "Traditionalist Catholicism" as the Fisheaters site is the best-known, oldest, and most informative traditionalist Catholic website on the internet. Schoemann (talk) 09:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The editor was relentlessly spamming, something that we, in the very beginning of 2005, had a semi policy (an official guideline by the end of 2005) (and we were not writing a soapbox in 2005 either). Anyway, the relentless spamming (even while discussing) got this site blacklisted.
    fisheaters.com is not the official site of traditionalist catholicism, it is a site containing a lot of information about it. However, much of the encyclopeadic information about traditionalist catholicism can and should be incorporated in our page itself - as for many other sites, the link may help in better understanding the subject, but the subject can be very well understood without having this external link, and the latter is the reason an external link should be included, we are not writing a linkfarm here. The specific reference may be appropriate (and maybe other references as well, if this site is so helpful in understanding the topic better), but I must say that references independent from the subject are always better - of course this reference is favourable to the topic of traditionalist catholicism. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    It's about as "official" as it gets aside from coming straight from the Vatican. It's used in RCIA classes, is cited in books, is recommended by traditionalist priests, for ex. The entry "Traditional Catholicism" is a basic introduction to the topic, but all the ins and outs of traditional Catholicism simply couldn't fit on a single Wiki page. The Fisheaters site is huge -- hundreds and hundreds of pages of material, detailed material that covers pretty much everything. It's like how "Orthodox Judaism" has a Wiki entry, and has external links to sites that explain the religion in greater detail. I think a link to Fisheaters should be allowed from the entry "Traditional Catholicism" in the same way. I'm not wanting to do any "linkfarming"; I just want to add one link to that one entry. Schoemann (talk) 23:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    '.. is about as official as it gets.' There are subjects without official sites, they simply do not get a link to any site because .. they are not there. The rest of possible external links then have to follow the non-WP:ELOFFICIAL rules of the guideline, and the question then is whether the addition of the link is necessary for the understanding of the subject (if you can understand the topic without having to see the external link, then it likely fails WP:ELNO #1). And it is not necessary to have all the ins and outs all on Wikipedia, all ins and outs are not necessary for understanding of a topic.
    The history of this (on and off wikipedia harassment, RfC's, ANI-threads, etc. makes me very reluctant to removal or whitelisting - I really think that this needs to have real necessity to be linked, and for external links I am .. far from convinced that this is necessary (and I would like such requests to be widely discussed by a larger audience including people who are not focused on one subject). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:12, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    And there are subjects without official sites that do get links, such as "Orthodox Judaism." I maintain that easy access to more information as provided in links, as with the entry for Orthodox Judaism, is helpful and that it's not a matter of "not being able to understand the topic" without it, but a matter of being able to understand it better, more fully, to explore further. There's simply no way a single entry could cover the information that's on hundreds of pages of the Fisheaters website. Couldn't it be whitelisted for that single entry so that spamming wouldn't be an issue? Schoemann (talk) 19:30, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.statsheet.com/mcb/coaches/fred-barakat

    This page is used on Fred Barakat, and is useful there in the external links. Regards, --AmaryllisGardener talk 14:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    archive.today/tP98

    Archive link for http://www.adultswim.com/blog/gobbledegook/off-the-air-11-things-left-online.html in Off the Air (TV series). 23W 01:14, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion

    3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion: 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

    Hidden address for the DuckDuckGo search engine. Currently blocked because of a blanket ban on .onion addresses; is on the DuckDuckGo article with a space after the dot to avoid the block, causing it not to link properly. Having the proper link would have better displayed Jc86035 (talk • contributions) 12:01, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Is this necessary, per WP:ELOFFICIAL we do not need to list all official websites of a subject, and http://duckduckgo.com works perfectly for all Wikipedia readers (whereas the .onion needs software installed). --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:13, 12 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined per WP:ELOFFICIAL/WP:NOT. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:36, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion (independent request)

    3g2upl4pq6kufc4m.onion: 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

    Same like above. That's an official URL for DuckDuckGo's hidden service --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 22:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Same like above: no Declined - see WP:ELOFFICIAL (and the rest of the external links guideline, as well as parts of our pillar 'What Wikipedia is not' also applies). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:30, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Findthebest

    findthebest.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 Only for the article FindTheBest as the company's official website. Oiyarbepsy (talk) 04:19, 14 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Please propose a link to an actual page, not the entire site. The domain is blacklisted and will remain so. I suggest their 'about' page at www.findthebest.com/get-to-know-us - let us know if that's acceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:23, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Underground Alliance Records

    uarecords.co.nr: 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 label is non profitable and it gathers whole balkan authors of alternative electronic music. the real site is about to be finished but it wil use the same domain.We are non profitable organisation,one of the largest in south europe,,and we do music from pure love. Is there a way to remove our site from blacklist?Currently there is article about our organization in making. here is the link www.uarcords.co.nr — Preceding unsigned comment added by UArec (talk • contribs)

    no Declined. That isn't a link, that's a whole domain, and the whole domain is blacklisted. This page is for requesting whitelisting of specific pages on a blacklisted site. Total delisting can be requested at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist, but I advise you not to bother. De-listing requests from site owners or anyone else with a conflict of interest are not accepted. If a trusted, high-volume user requests de-listing, then it will be considered. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:21, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    facebookcorewwwi.onion

    facebookcorewwwi.onion: 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

    See Wikipedia:Village_pump_(policy)#Time_to_stop_blocking_.onion_links. It's an official Facebook service URL and should be included in the article. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 17:26, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined - see WP:ELOFFICIAL (and the rest of the external links guideline, as well as parts of our pillar 'What Wikipedia is not' also applies). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    suw74isz7wqzpmgu.onion

    suw74isz7wqzpmgu.onion: 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 one is official for WikiLeaks. --Rezonansowy (talk | contribs) 22:41, 13 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Same like above: no Declined - see WP:ELOFFICIAL (and the rest of the external links guideline, as well as parts of our pillar 'What Wikipedia is not' also applies). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 16 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    terabitconsulting.com/downloads/2014-submarine-cable-market-industry-report.pdf

    Submarine communications cable has a dead link to a report about the submarine cable industry that is no longer hosted at suboptic.org. The report is now hosted at the above address. Ahoymatey4 (talk) 07:12, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/actor-ric-young-on-hawaii-five-o

    1. Article by Ed Moy is well researched and directly about actor Ric Young; would be useful for the article on him.
    2. Includes quotes by Young relevant to the specific subject matter of the article. There are not many articles about this actor who has been in supporting roles for about 50 years.
    3. I recognize that examiner.com as a website is a red flag, but the article here appears to be reliable and much more than self-serving. It also attributes some of its facts to other sources.

    SidP (talk) 22:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    mazet-st-voy.com/animations.html

    False positive, legit site ending in voy linked at Jardin Botanique Montagnard. Shouldn't the blacklist not block sites with - before the blocked url ? Cenarium (talk) 08:23, 13 December 2014 (UTC)l[reply]

    Seems like a false positive indeed - regarding the -: that depends on what was spammed, if it were a lot of ###-voy.com sites .. I'll have a look at that as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:52, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:54, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    manning.com/about/index.html

    Using a valid link to the About Us page of manning.com in the Wikipedia article on Manning Publications would seem to fall within the 'General exceptions' section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests and I would like to ask for this link to be whitelisted on this page, since in this instance, the link would normally be regarded as leading to the official site of the subject of the article.

    Richard asr (talk) 09:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.kavkazcenter.com

    We have a page about this source in Wikipedia. This is a useful source. It was used for sourcing in a large number of books (see here) and certain wikipedia pages. It was included in blacklist without discussion, based on a request from an IP [2]. Note that IP provided link to discussion on RS noticeboard that leads to nowhere. This site has indeed been discussed on RSNB, and some participants expressed concerns in its reliability, while others argued that it can be used in many cases with appropriate attribution. In any case, simply not being a reliable source is not a reason for blacklisting. I therefore request to whitelist the entire site. My very best wishes (talk) 02:12, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    tradingeconomics.com

    why is tradingeconomics.com blocked?--Crossswords (talk) 12:42, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Likely because it was spammed? Do you need it on a specific page, and which link do you need (leave off the http:// and it will save here)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ReelSeo - Watchmojo youtube channel termination

    I would like this particular page to be white-listed for use in the Watchmojo.com wikipedia article, as it contains direct quotes from Watchmojo.com CEO, Ashkan Karbasfrooshan regarding the youtube channel's temporary termination in December 2013. I would appreciate a quick response to this request. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CS104Group21 (talk • contribs) 20:20, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Which link (if you leave off the http:// it will save here). --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:01, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    cinecoffee.com

    cinecoffee.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

    Could someone kindly please help me white list our domain. We bought this domain on June 26, 2014. But this domain is listed in Wikipedia's blacklist. I don't have any idea how cinecoffee.com got blacklisted. I request the admins to kindly white list my domain.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Vijaygenx (talk • contribs)

    It got blacklisted for practically the same reason as this request is Rejected. We generally do not whitelist sites at the request of site owners and we never whitelist when they intend to add links to said sites. MER-C 14:09, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/ashly-burch-talks-voice-acting-and-new-role

    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

    Interview with Ashly Burch that I would like to use in a article I'm making about the Adventure Time episode "Breezy", which she guest stars in. The Examiner article was promoted on her Facebook page by herself. Thanks. 23W 20:49, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moladi

    moladi.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 moladi.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 have just log on to the Wikipedia page for moladi - "An automated process has detected links on this page on the local or global blacklist. If the links are appropriate you may request whitelisting by following these instructions; otherwise consider removing or replacing them with more appropriate links". The person responsible for previous post on Wikipedia is no longer with us. This is my first-time on Wikipedia and am not sure how protocol works...I kindly request that you "whitelist" our www.moladi.com and www.moladi.net sites as this page is very relevant to the topic "moladi"

    You will notice there has not been any activity from this account for a very very long time - it will be greatly appreciated if you can whitelist us and I undertake to ensure that there will be no abuse of moladi on Wikipedia - Thank you in anticipation Moladi (talk) 23:59, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined, whitelisting is not done on the request of the site owner. Additionally, Moladi has been listed for deletion. Stifle (talk) 12:51, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.opposingviews.com

    opposingviews.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 a legitimate domain and I was very surprised to see that it is blacklisted. The only reason that I can fathom is that at some point years ago the domain server was hacked and was sending out spam or something like that. Whatever the case, this is one of the highest-traffic news sites in the U.S. and should be whitelisted as it does not produce any form of abuse or spam.

    This article in particular would benefit because in its current state it suggests that the domain is illegitimate: Opposing Views.

    There are also many other pages that link to pages on this domain that would benefit. For example:
    Main article: Saints Row: The Third

    "In all of these songs I am deliberately attempting to tempt people to like the higher forms of music. Eventually I will succeed." --Sun Ra (talk) 20:54, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. First of all, opposingviews.com is not blacklisted on the English Wikipedia, it is blacklisted globally on all Wikimedia Foundation projects everywhere. Secondly, this page is not for whitelisting entire domains that are already on the blacklist, it is for requesting whitelisting specific individual pages (such as the 'about' page) on a blacklisted website.  Defer to Global blacklist to request removal from the global blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    community.tulpa.info/attachment.php?aid=1072

    tulpa.info: 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 an online copy (.pdf) of an article by Ian White which would allow people to read the article associated with a citation. Normally the article is available only by purchasing the November 2014 issue of Paranormal Underground magazine but through negotiation with the magazine Editor and with the Author (Ian White) permission has been given Tulpa.info to host an online copy (exactly as provided by Paranormal Underground magazine's Editor). As far as I am aware, this is the only authorized, freely-available, online copy of the article (which is copyrighted, and used with permission). I'm not trying to circumvent the blacklist of tulpa.info - the intent is to link to a legally-online-hosted copy of a magazine-published article (the only legally online copy currently, as far as I am aware).

    The citation (Ian White) is to be used in the article Tulpa referring to the phenomena of online Internet subculture (relating to, and concerning, tulpa). The specific URL is https:// community.tulpa.info/attachment.php?aid=1072 .

    Please excuse me if I am not eloquent. The article is similar to three other citations already in that section. Aristobleus (talk) 17:46, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please provide evidence that the PDF is being hosted with permission. We don't link to copyvios. Stifle (talk) 12:49, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    O.k. I'll try to get this sorted out on the Reliable Sources Noticeboard. Sorry, I missed that bit when reading the instructions. Aristobleus (talk) 12:01, 13 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Not done for now; feel free to relist as and when you have the necessary proof. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    bookielist.com

    bookielist.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 tried to add reference to William Hill (bookmaker) with http://bookielist.com/bookmaker-review-william-hill and found out that it was blacklisted. The same got banned from Wikipedia, reason given was: # Reaper Eternal # Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Xbajs00. The link is a review to the article previously stated. I know it has sockpuppets involved, but this time is for an useful use in the Wikipedia community. Karlhard (talk) 13:48, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    bettar.no-ip.org/lxiv/download.html

    I was trying to edit OsiriX and add the URL in question to the external links section. I received an error about triggering a protection filter for no-ip. I would appreciate it if you could allow the new link to be added. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.167.84.195 (talk) 05:29, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A 'download' section is available from the official site of the subject - if this site is maintained by the owners it should be linked from their site (or all info should/will be available from their site), if it is not it is inappropriate to link to an unofficial download site for the software. Anyway, 'you can download it here'-type of information is inappropriate for an encyclopedia. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:41, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I removed the download "hints", leaving just a mention of the project. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.167.84.195 (talk) 07:34, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    'A mention of the project'? So why does it need to be linked. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:43, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Okay, if you don't see any relevance just forget about it. Sorry I wasted your time and web space. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 114.167.84.195 (talk) 04:38, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ole Hanson

    Request whitelisting of www.sanclemente.com/ole_hanson.php . I have no idea why it was blacklisted to begin with, it is a newspaper link needed to provide verifiability for the article Ole Hanson. I put spaces in the URL since this idiotic blacklist protocol won't even let me post the full URL of the link I am appealing to be whitelisted. Nice. Carrite (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For reference: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/April_2009#Arthur_D._and_Lynda_C._Davis_Trust_domains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:47, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner Page on DVD

    Just this one article to add to Draft:Ryan Haywood. All it does is mention a DVD with Ryan Haywood in it so I can put him as a voice actor in it. EoRdE6(Come Talk to Me!) 03:24, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner Page Music Review

    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

    Request a whitelist for the page www.examiner.com/article/interview-tribute-group-dedicates-its-music-to-beatles-solo-years to add to www.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afterfab as a reference as it has direct quotes and is a review of the band AfterFab.

    youtu.be/8n0i-hjydcM

    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

    Request this page be white-listed so it can be used on the page for Maynard (broadcaster). It provides verifiable support for the subject's advertising and voice-over work, which is unlikely to get any mention in more conventional sources like newspapers. Those sources talk about his more conventional careers on stage, radio, television shows etc, but they omit advertising. This is the only source that has been identified for that aspect of his career. In this context, it is more like a primary source which are permitted to demonstrate the truth of a statement which is not controversial. --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:39, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Request withdrawn The full YouTube URL was acceptable - I was not aware that the shortened URL provided by YouTube was treated differently. Sorry for wasting your time! --Gronk Oz (talk) 14:57, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Sherry Jackson interview - Examiner.com

    One interview, in three parts, for use in Sherry Jackson, a WP:BLP.

    • www.examiner.com/article/from-baby-sherry-to-sherry-baby-my-memorable-afternoon-with-sherry-jackson
    • www.examiner.com/article/60-s-chic-k-the-retro-fantasy-world-of-sherry-jackson
    • www.examiner.com/article/the-times-they-are-a-strange-thing-sherry-jackson-and-the-end-of-the-1960s

    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

    These articles are taken from a day-long interview conducted 35 years after then end of the actor's career. She talks about her family, early work, financial trouble, on-set experiences, and career determinants, topics which are not covered elsewhere. In particular she talks about the spurious nude scene in Gunn which lurks, inaccurate and unreferenced, in the article.

    The interview will be a primary source for details of family and personal life - parents, childhood, financial and career difficulties, creative and professional influences - which are now absent from the article and from her official website. It will support some of her appearances until secondary sources are added; currently none of the Filmography entries are referenced. It might be used for a first-person account of how her career developed as it did. Her career was over long before this interview, so she is in a position to consider it more objectively from a distance than in earlier interviews. (And maybe she does.)

    The interviewer is an NYU film studies graduate [www.examiner.com/classic-movie-in-new-york/mel-neuhaus] [3] with apparently a lot of experience writing about film but no paid experience as a film critic or journalist. Yappy2bhere (talk) 22:29, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Philosophy Talk home page (www.philosophytalk.org)

    philosophytalk.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

    The url in question is the home page for the Philosophy Talk radio show and so should be legit for use on the wikipedia article on the show. I'm also not sure why it was blacklisted in the first place and would be interested to know since the reason might involved ethical problems for the show's hosts (both of whom are Stanford Professors and the show is, I believe, partially supported by the university) that would need to be fixed. As far as I can see other references in wikipedia could just as well point to the radio show's wikipedia article; however, I could see some articles citing a particular show since most of the people interviewed are experts in their fields and could be reliable sources (though in most cases they've almost certainly published the same stuff in peer reviewed books or articles [though perhaps in a not so easily understood manner]). I will admit to knowing both hosts which is one reason I'm disinclined to do much editing on the article itself (though it definitely needs work). --Erp (talk) 04:42, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Will need a specific site such as index.html or home.php before I can progress this. Stifle (talk) 16:49, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    www.beacon.org

    This is a book publisher homepage (a known publisher, imprint of Random House), useful for publication information. Mozucat (talk) 19:03, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've added an exception; this is the page being used as a citation by the class project improving Kindred (novel). I think it might take a bit for the exception to take effect.--Pharos (talk) 20:35, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/Terms_of_Use.html

    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

    For use in the Examiner.com article in order to include a reference citing the examiner.com's Terms of Use. Mojoworker (talk) 21:43, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    How many weeks does it take for these whitelisting requests to be resolved? Do we need more admins? Mojoworker (talk) 18:56, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, it's been over a month now. I've lost the edit I was trying to make. FFS, the bureaucracy here is mind–numbing at times. Time to resurrect WP:WikiProject Administrator? Mojoworker (talk) 19:55, 24 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done -- Hoary (talk) 07:53, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    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

    I'm proposing the whitelisting solely for use in the article about Examiner.com to link to the site. I strongly support maintaining the site on the blacklist for most purposes, but it should be linked in the article about the topic. Whitelisting this wouldn't benefit a specific person. We normally link to a company website in articles about them and this shouldn't be different. Request specific link examiner.com to be whitelisted for the article Examiner.com Niteshift36 (talk) 19:28, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We can't white-list the domain name. We need an actual path to an actual page on that site. Besides, the link to www.examiner.com is already available in the infobox of the Examiner.com article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is in the infobox and an annoying bot keeps tagging the article for using it. How about examiner.com/about Niteshift36 (talk) 22:34, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • www.examiner.com/about doesn't exist. Do you mean www.examiner.com/About_Examiner ? If so, I'd support whitelisting that. -- Hoary (talk) 07:25, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • It has apparently changed since I proposed it. Yes, that link would work just fine. Niteshift36 (talk) 13:32, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    www.examiner.com/About_Examiner  Done -- Hoary (talk) 00:05, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.galerie-obadia.com/artists/file_120_2.pdf A Conversation with Quentin Bajac

    I'd like to whitelist this web page to add it to the Luc Delahaye page because this is his most comprehensive interview. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.73.96.2 (talk • contribs)

    Yes. The link is as you describe; I'm about to whitelist it. -- Hoary (talk) 13:49, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done -- Hoary (talk) 13:56, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.youtube.com/watch?v=0RjC-vh06_c

    This page would be extremely helpful on the article Trent from Punchy, as this YouTube video is the subject of said article, however it is currently blacklisted as an external link, presumably because the Trent from Punchy article was until recently blocked from being re-created. Freikorp (talk) 11:01, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Been waiting over 6 weeks now; any chance someone can take a brief look at this? Freikorp (talk) 12:10, 25 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not a matter of whitelisting this exception to a more general blacklist entry; instead, it's a matter of removing something from the blacklist. ¶ So much for hairsplitting; what you say seems valid and I am about to remove the entry. -- Hoary (talk) 00:57, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Done -- Hoary (talk) 01:10, 26 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    www.examiner.com/review/clinton-heylin-pores-through-springsteen-discog-e-street-shuffle

    I would like to whitelist this review of Clinton Heylin's book on Bruce Springsteen, to add as a cite to the Heylin article. I believe Peter Roche is a widely published journalist and reviewer, so his review of Heylin's book is not spam. Thanks, Mick gold (talk) 00:38, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Is there any reason we can't find reviews from reliable sources that aren't blacklisted? Niteshift36 (talk) 17:42, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Not all reviews are of equal merit. Roche's review is knowledgeable and has informed discussions about Springsteen's recording history. Why is it not valid as comment on Heylin's book? Mick gold (talk) 12:21, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The key is in the 'reviews from reliable sources' - examiner.com reviews do not have editorial overview, and hence not necessarily reliable. If there are sources from reliable sources, those other ones are preferable. And this type of information simply looks like information that is available from other, reliable sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:27, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Says who? Int21h (talk) 06:54, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    What part? Examiner itself clearly tells that they do not review what is published there, and Google shows many reviews of the book besides examiner.com. People just publish their reviews on examiner.com for one reason - to earn money with it. If that same information is available elsewhere (on sites that do not have this problem of earning money for the writer, or are of equal or even better general reliability), then those other sources are preferable. Is the specific information from the review on examiner.com so unique that it can not be sourced elsewhere? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:05, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined - Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com/article/shatner-is-a-ladykiller-director-william-gref-on-impulse-1974

    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 just want to use it for Impulse (1974 film). --George Ho (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined No reason given to suggest that this is more credible than the average stuff from examiner.com. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/singer-barbara-mauritz-of-lamb-group-that-helped-close-fillmore-west-has-died?cid=rss

    Need a 1 page unlist for this: www.examiner.com/article/singer-barbara-mauritz-of-lamb-group-that-helped-close-fillmore-west-has-died?cid=rss

    I had to put an extra . in that to get it to save...should be examiner all 1 word.

    We need that link because it is the only confirmation of the death of Barbara Mauritz so far. It is for the Deaths in 2014 page.

    Thanks.Sunnydoo (talk) 03:57, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined Examiner.com is blacklisted for good reason; there's no suggestion in the request that the reason doesn't apply here. -- Hoary (talk) 08:12, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review

    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/review/the-big-bang-theory-the-hawking-excitation-review is a link I wish to include in "The Hawking Excitation". It has a review of the episode, and I think it is well-written and reliable (as good as the reviews I have include from IGN, The A.V. Club etc). Reviews are just opinions, and given all the other reviews mentioned I can't see it giving undue weight. I have drafted a paragraph containing what I would like to say here, containing another review as well. (The refs don't work because it's in my sandbox but you can get the gist.) Bilorv (talk) 08:38, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a question, do you think that the examiner.com review says the same because of independent and reliable research, or because the other reviews that you mention say the same (and hence, the examiner.com review is a regurgitation of that)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:05, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not quite sure I understand the question but I'll have a go at answering it. The examiner review contains positive feedback, similar to most of the other reviews, and also compliments Stephen Hawking's appearance in the episode. No other review mentions the limited screen time of Hawking (which I think is an important point) or the fact that he is a scientist (contrasting with many other guest stars on the show), so I think it would be unfair to call it a "regurgitation" of any other review. Bilorv (talk) 12:48, 25 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The author of that review is a college student, not a professional reviewer, according to his bio. I am not understanding why it is necessary for a review to point out that Stephen Hawking had screen time (of course he did, every other review mentions that he appeared on the show, so obviously he had screen time) or that he is a scientist (obviously he's a scientist, he is one of the best-known modern scientists of our age, instantly recognizable, and an author of popular books for laypeople). Are you saying that you want to cite this Examiner review for stating what is already obvious? I can tell from the other reviews, without even seeing the show, that Stephen Hawking had screen time in it. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:05, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The key word was limited: Hawking had limited screen time. Yes, of course he appeared in the episode but only in the final scene, very briefly (as opposed to say, James Earl Jones, who had much more screen time in "The Convention Conundrum"). Without a review stressing that Hawking only appeared for a short period of time, the article might imply that Hawking had a much bigger acting part in the episode. As for the scientist bit, well, the point is that the show was complimented for having a scientist on the show, as the show is about science. No other review explicitly mentions that it is great that they managed to get a high-profile scientist on the show. Bilorv (talk) 15:32, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The real point here, is that anybody can write a review on examiner.com, and it isn't any different from writing the same review on a personal blog. In this case we have a college kid using examiner.com as a means to generate a bit of extra income. If he compliments a show or makes any other personal observation, then it is no different than citing some random blogger who happens to review TV shows, of which there are many. And, blogs are generally not acceptable as references. Due to examiner.com's lack of editorial oversight, it is functionally no different than a blog, and therefore generally not acceptable for citing in accordance with WP:RS.
    Also we don't need sources for self-evident facts that are obvious by inspection. For example, we could say without citation that the Mona Lisa has her arms crossed, because that fact is obvious from looking at the painting. Similarly, the article can say without citation that Hawking appeared only in the final scene, because it is obvious from looking at the episode. This solves the problem of the possible implication that Hawking had a bigger role.
    I am not seeing a reason to white-list yet another examiner.com link for the purpose of citing facts that are obvious, or for citing the views and observations of a non-notable reviewer. On that basis, this request is no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:23, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    thewebminer.com

    • The website should be whitelisted because contains free data analysis tools in "tools" section that are relevant for articles like Data analysis, Data clustering, Data scraping and other articles related to statistics. Also it's a relevant source of data for statistics. There are some free data sets in "Download" section.

    Link to add:

    Ady1689 (talk) 13:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We're not going to whitelist the whole site; that is the same as removing it from the blacklist, (which as you know as the petitioner, was already declined). Notice that most (if not all) approve requests here state which specific link is to be whitelisted and for what purpose. OhNoitsJamie Talk 00:44, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    thewebminer.com/tools: 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 whitelist url thewebminer.com/tools ? --78.97.94.140 (talk) 16:43, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    No, but you can stop wasting your time on these noticeboards. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:59, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If the /tools path is common to all the links that got the site blacklisted in the first place, then I agree, the answer is no.
    You need to propose a specific link for use in a specific article, and explain why having that link adds value to the article. So far, you have not done this. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:13, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    dubaimetro.eu

    dubaimetro.eu: 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

    The website should be whitelisted because it is the official website of Dubai Metro, and I will be using it to cite some references in Dubai Metro articles. Epicgenius (talk) 14:20, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We don't white-list entire websites here. If you want to de-list the site from the blacklist, the place to request it is at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. Also using a WP:PRIMARYSOURCE as a reference is not desirable in articles. If you have a specific page on that site to propose as a reference, we can consider it, but not the whole site. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    losthorizons.com

    The website is full of useful information about the U.S. Income Tax. The URL I specify below contains the cover page and page 98 of the court transcript referred to in the last paragraph of the article on Victoria_A._Roberts. The full document is not yet available on the Internet.

    Articles that would benefit from the removal of losthorizons.com from the blacklist include every article on the application of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, including Sixteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Internal Revenue Code.

    Articles that would benefit from the addition of the link below include Victoria A. Roberts, Subornation of perjury, Title 18 of the United States Code, and Nancy Garlock Edmunds. There are likely many others where the contention between judge's orders and standing law is discussed.

    The specific link to the page I'm requesting be added is losthorizons.com/Newsletter/CriminalAssault/DoreenJuryInstructions.pdf

    losthorizons.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 Dscotese (talk) 20:37, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Lost Horizons seems like a highly unreliable source pushing a incoherent conspiracy theory about the US tax code. It seems best that it stay blacklisted.—Neil P. Quinn (talk) 17:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com page

    You mean the same data as that can be found from other sites, like http://guestofaguest.com/new-york/calendar/2014/march/new-york-choral-society-spring-gala-2, which seems more reputable than examiner.com and, I think, without the problems of examiner.com. Looking at the quick google results, there are other sites which are suitable as a reference as well. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:24, 26 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The guestofaguest page you suggested is an inadequate substitute; it uses future tense, and thus does not prove the assertion. In what way is the examiner.com link problematic? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 14:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Please reply. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 16:27, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Pigsonthewing: Examiner.com articles are written to make money for generally unspecialised amateur writers, and generally not to be an independent reliable source. The material is often scraped, original research, or unverifiable. We ask editors who request whitelisting of examiner.com links whether there are replacements (and I seem to find that this information is, at least in part, available elsewhere). When working on BLPs, we ask for proper references, and examiner.com articles do not have the best reputation there (but there are exceptions - but my first search did not suggest this is one of them). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:41, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: If the writers are making money, they're not amateurs. McClure is dead. Where else (noting my concern above) did you find this information confirmed? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:58, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    "If the writers are making money, they're not amateurs" - And that is where the misunderstanding of Examiner.com is: You sign up, you write your article, and for every person who visits your article you get money. And not, as you may think, that the writers are hired to write, like e.g. for the New York Times.
    You want confirmation that John McClure is dead? See www.nytimes.com/2014/06/25/arts/music/john-mcclure-dies-at-84-produced-classic-records.html?_r=0. That is on a site where writers get hired to write, a site with a history of fact checking, a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:18, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Or for the point that some society awarded him an award where no outside source has published about (including the local New York Times), except for one article on examiner.com and some announcements? --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:39, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, I'm referring to the award. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 21:16, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, and how is it notable in Wikipedia that a (redlinked, hence questionable notable) society (in fact, an article on the subject was A7'd) awarded him a (redlinked, hence questionably notable) award which has only been reported by one article on Examiner.com, and not by any mainstream publication? --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:18, 3 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Remulve my site foxylex.dk to spam list

    Please remulve my site foxylex.dk to spam list this site is Law Danish site - this is not spam received was confusion Thanks for understanding— Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.204.156.232 (talk • contribs) .

    This page is for whitelist requests, not for removal requests.  Defer to Global blacklist for removal requests (this is globally blacklisted, not locally), or please give a full url for a specific link for a specific place on Wikipedia here. Thanks. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:37, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    silkroad6ownowfk.onion

    silkroad6ownowfk.onion: 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 the site should be whitelisted: There is in place a generalised and universal ban on the .onion domain space which (in summary) is a response to, and defence for the perceived (or real) threat of anonymous tor domains being a source of redirects, malware and generally sub-optimal material.

    2. Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link: This whitelisting is to remedy and rectify a gaping hole (specifically the link to the marketplace in question) on the article page about Silk Road Marketplace. [4]

    3. Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added. (provided above)

    Comments: After looking into the history of this blacklisting I was able to find no stated reason based on the intent to block the existence of the fact of Silk Road marketplace, only that it was asserted that a global .onion blacklisting was desired and exists as *anything*.onion in the global blacklist so as to enable case-by-case whitelisting (such as this) to occur.

    However it is clear that this is resulting in a kind of false reality because lacking a reference to the marketplace under discussion is suppressing a fundamental and factual and absolute attribute with respect the article topic.

    Depriving a reader of the relevant link is akin to having an entire article about the Google search engine and failing to and intentionally omitting any references to google.com.

    The net effect is at best pseudo-censorship and a speech violation. At worst this fundamentally undermines the wikipedia project only serves to harm the very objectives of the freedom of access to information. It is incumbent on editors not to allow such a greasy pole of thought policing to take root in this project, as it is harmful writ large.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.39.42 (talk • contribs)

     Not done. What "speech violation"? Wikipedia is not subject to any laws or regulation mandating free speech.
    Also, the .onion TLD is not recognized by any browser or internet DNS. Links that require special software to view are generally to be avoided. You can always include the link by omitting the 'http' or 'onion' prefix. If most readers don't have the required software anyway, it won't make any difference. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:48, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion

    .onion domains has a Blanket ban on them, which mean that any Tor hidden service that constitute a official link need to first go through here. This specific domain is the official link for The Pirate Bay, and while their other domain name change frequently, this one do not. It is also unaffected by roadblocks in which readers who want to understand the subject matter might encounter. It is currently preventing consensus to add it as per article talk page.

    The domain itself has never been added to wikipedia before, and as such has no history of spam or issues.

    See request and MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/archives/March 2011#Hidden wiki for details about why all .onion domains got Blanket blacklisted. Belorn (talk) 09:10, 9 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. Because the link requires special software to function, it won't make any difference to the vast majority of readers whether the link is 'active' or not. Therefore, it also won't make any difference to the vast majority of readers simply to display the link as uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion without any special prefix. If anyone with the required Tor sofware wants to view it, they can always copy and paste it. But it's useless as a reference for verification purposes, therefore it need not be an active link. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    So a blanket blacklist entry which was added under a pretense that exceptions would be whitelisted, except now whitelisting will not happen regardless of consensus on the article talk page. When you yourself added the blanket .onion entry to the blacklist, you stated "Like .co.cc, there is no good reason to keep .onion off the blacklist when the whitelist can take care of the 2 or 3 legitimate URLs with that subdomain."(source). Now you are claiming that no whitelisting can ever be done on .onion links because they require special software to function (which is also true for flash and quicktime). Im sorry to say, but this seems very dishonestly acted on your part, saying one thing and then do an other. I still hope you are open for discussion and whitelisting .onion links as per your earlier statement, but I fear the only option available is a third opinion or Dispute resolution and redo the discussion for the original blacklist entry. Article consensus should not be disregarded because one editor has the power to edit a blacklist. Belorn (talk) 13:12, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    This has nothing to do with going against consensus or any of your other groundless accusations. I can see now it wasn't clear in my initial response (and I apologize for that) but my decline of your request was based on your dubious claim that this .onion link is the official link for The Pirate Bay. Last I checked it was thepiratebay.se. Our own article on The Pirate Bay even says so, and that article makes zero mention whatsoever of Tor or onion. No reliable source I can find confirms your claim. If you can provide a way to verify what you say, I can white-list this, but I need a valid reason — and convenience is not a valid reason to poke a hole in the blacklist. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:43, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for backing away from your previous statement and actually talk about this specific link rather than generalization of .onion links. It does make this more civil, and I do appreciate that. As for consensus, I did link to the talk page discussion that addressed which source confirms the onion link as official, and pointed that those who discussed this on the article talk page had come to an consensus. The discussion ended on "When I tried to add uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion to the article, it triggered a warning that it was on the spam blacklist, as I thought it might (screenshot here). So that's the end of that.". (source). Ending a talk page discussion on "we all agree that we want to do X, but there is a blacklist so we can't" is exactly why I posted this request (and why whitelisting exist?). If you disagree with the consensus in that talk page regarding the validity of that source, I would like to invite you to the pirate bay talk page to further discuss this there in order to reconfirm the consensus or change it. Belorn (talk) 12:55, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I am considering this, but I have some reservations still: 1) that local consensus is not very broadly discussed, 3 people? And 2) per WP:ELOFFICIAL, we do not need to link to all official sites of a subject. Now, if a second official site is providing extensive extra information over the first, then that is a good consideration, however, here this is an .onion, in the dark web, inaccessible for the far majority of people (in my case, I would even doubt that I can get there with the software installed). I do agree that this is an official site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:01, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is why I invite further discussion on the talk page. Larger consensus is always nicer, but when there is no objecting voice in the discussion and it ended on a technical impossibility. My posting there was just for the record, which goes against WP:NOTBUREAUCRACY but felt necessary. Few members of the public are in the habit of casually dropping in to the local planning office in order to say "me too", and I suspect same is true for talk pages. If you feel it would be a sign of good faith, I can put up a request for comment for a few weeks/month and see if it solicit more editors to comment. Regarding 2#, I posted why in my original request. The official link frequently changes url and gets blocked. The .onion link on the other hand has been stable and consistent through all the url changes of the official link. Having a consistent link, even with the heavy drawbacks of needing special software, would be useful addition as a supplement to the other link. Belorn (talk) 13:17, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In theory, I could add a RFC for this page but since article disputes should general be on the talk page of the article, it feels a bit odd to add the template here. If we have to have it here however, could you (Dirk Beetstra) explicit state your standpoint in a yes, no, or neutral. After that, I can write a RFC with a brief, neutral statement of the issue and then summerize my statement below it. Belorn (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    There is at the moment the official link - having a second link in view of that that link changes/gets blocked seems superfluous, per WP:EL/WP:ELOFFICIAL (it is not mandatory to have a working official link anyway, it is a service to the users and if it does not exist, moved (just change it to the new url), or is not accessible because the server is down is not a problem of Wikipedia). Moreover, as I stated above, the .onion is unavailable for most and hence does not add any extra information (as Amatulić is stating above 'Because the link requires special software to function, it won't make any difference to the vast majority of readers whether the link is 'active' or not'). I think that that makes the situation different from, e.g. The Hidden Wiki where the .onion is the only official link. So I really wonder whether this is providing extra information over the official link that there is already, per 'Some acceptable links include those that contain further research that is accurate and on-topic, information that could not be added to the article for reasons such as copyright or amount of detail, or other meaningful, relevant content that is not suitable for inclusion in an article for reasons unrelated to its accuracy' (from WP:EL) - for me, and for the vast majority of readers, the .onion site is not providing extra information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:10, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for clarify you statement a bit. There is 3 provided benefits this link provides: 1#, the site reported as the most censored website on the net, which mean a significant number of readers can not access the site using the existing link.sourcesource2source3source4 It is even questionable if the "vast majority of reader" can access the site using that link, given how common censorship of that link is. 2#, the site regularly get mirrors edited in which is not-official. Adding this official secondary link would address this need, thus reducing the edits which try to include the unofficial mirrors. 3#, the official link has consistently been in danger of WP:DATED, while the tor link is consistent over time and has not changed. It thus give a distinct long-term benefit to the article.
    Last as a meta comment about the discussion here, I am a bit unhappy that the black list, a tool used to address spam issues on WP, is instead used as an avenue for non-spam content disputes without involving the talk page of the article. The link in question has never been related to spam problems on WP, so the WP:BLACK do not address this kind of situation, nor indicate that the black list should be used as an override to consensus of the article talk page, nor imply that it should be used as a alternative to WP:ELN. Having the discussion here and not on the article talk page seem as a consensus-building pitfalls similar to Off-wiki discussions, since participants of the talk page is not included here. Belorn (talk) 09:00, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Providing convenience links is not the purpose of Wikipedia. Anyone with software to access uj3wazyk5u4hnvtk.onion would be quite capable of copy/pasting the text. What encyclopedic purpose would be served by making this link clickable? Bear in mind that a clickable link would not work for the vast majority of readers, so such a link would cause confusion. Johnuniq (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    We could always do an exception, but links should be real links so automated tools know what and what isn't links. There is also procedure that handle the confusion you are talking about, described at WP:EL#Rich_media, which states we should include "explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content". If the link is worth including its worth having it actually be a link so it can be treated as such. Belorn (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    @Belorn:, I'll first reply to your second part - the abuse observed with different .onion domains was well within the 'spam' requirements needed to solve, as well as other problems with the .onion domains (phishing attacks, malware attacks, etc.). It is a pertinently false statement that it is used as an avenue to block content disputes, .onion sites fail our inclusion standards, whatever the local consensus or disputes resolve to. You can have local consensus to link to a copyright violation, it does not trump our WP:COPYLINK-policy. It is a similar concept as the recently discussed 'petition'-sites (on AN/I), where the proposal to allow the petitions to be linked was overwhelmingly shot down, even if the majority of the petitions have never been spammed. Same would type of reasoning would be true for examiner.com (which, like the petition sites, has been spammed on a small scale, but it is providing a spam-incentive, is unreliable, often replaceable).
    Regarding the .onion here, that the main domain regularly changes and that it is a drag to follow up is not a reason to whitelist the other link (keep it up-to-date, there are other pages which also change on an hourly basis and no-one suggests to protect them because it changes too much). It is not an inclusion argument. That it is becoming WP:DATED is a reason to monitor, not a reason to include another stable link. That most people can not access the official site is also not an inclusion reason, it is actually more a reason to here IAR and also not list the official site as it is of no use to the vast majority anyway). We have NO obligation to link to the official site of a subject (it is a service .. and more of a in policy/guideline codified IAR to the same polic/guideline - if you ignore that a site is the official site for a subject, the vast majority fails the majority of WP:EL (they are overly advertising, not giving more info than Wikipedia already provides, often need special software, are not everywhere accessible, heavily abused, plainly heavily spammed, etc. etc.). And there are cases where we do not even link to the official site of the subject because of the major abuse/spam reasons, the site is blacklisted and nothing suitable can be whitelisted without getting back the abuse. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Its hard to get back to the abuse when the this specific link has not been involved in abuse. It has not been part of an phishing attack, malware attack, been spammed or had any other abuse. The black list entry is about a type of website, rather than a specific website, which is different to the listed examples you gave. A similar block would be to do "*.qt" which blocks any link that require a quicktime reader, and using the blacklist in order to enforce against the inclusion of such content. Second, just because there is "NO obligation" to add official links is not an argument against adding it. There is no obligation to do anything on wikipedia, as any work is done on a voluntary basis using consensus. That most people can not access the official site and would be helped with this link is to me a reason for inclusion. Helping readers to further understanding of the subject is why we include a link in the first place and why we have official links included in articles. If you are disagreeing that this link is not helpful to those uses who can't access the current official link, then at least we now a clear disagreement about something specific about this link, which mean its possible to go forward with this discussion using the tools of DR. Belorn (talk) 17:43, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    No, this is not the same as blocking .qt (unless .qt files would be used on a significant scale to install malware, redirect to other sites, phishing attacks, etc.). This is indeed slightly higher than examiner.com, but similar to blocks of certain 'practically redirect only TLDs'.
    But here, the official site is there. Per WP:ELOFFICIAL we do not list all the official sites of a subject, generally only the main one. And that is what is done. 'That most people can not access the official site and would be helped with this link is for me a reason for inclusion' .. but most people would also not be helped with this, because most people do not have the software installed to go to a .onion site. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, more than one link may be appropriate if additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites. The link provide a very unique content for those readers which can not otherwise access the website. The link is also not prominently linked from other official websites.
    Per WP:ELOFFICIAL, where a link to rich media is deemed appropriate, an explicit indication of the technology needed to access the relevant content must be given. We can do that with this tor link. This resolve the confusion a reader might otherwhise get by a link which require a specific technology to access a link.
    Last, readers are helped when they are given a choice. Having a link which they can view in order to research the subject matter is something I define as helpful. The software is one-click install, and is far easier to do for a reader than buying a book or getting past a pay-wall. Lets not try to make this sound as something which the majority of readers can not do if give the chose. Belorn (talk) 04:52, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That is the point "more than one link may be appropriate if additional links provide the reader with significant unique content and are not prominently linked from other official websites" (my bolding): the .onion is for most readers also not accessible and hence does not provide significant unique content. I, for one, can not see the extra content. And I do not believe that for most readers this is providing significant unique content for most of the readers as most of the readers can not access it anyway. Even the official site, as you state, is (regularly) not providing significant unique content, as it is blocked etc.
    Your second point is a technicality, I do agree that these links must state that they need the extra software, if they are included.
    Regarding the last point: Readers are helped when they have the choice, but they have no choice but to install the .onion software and go to the site (so they have no choice, either they go to the regular site, or they don't get the additional content - or they can't see either and don't get the content). Moreover, that would also be an argument in favour of adding the official website, their facebook, their myspace, their youtube channel (and all the youtube videos, so they don't have to browse through the channel to get them), their twitter, ánd their linkedin - that is providing a choice. However, our policies and guidelines argue against that - we list only the main official website and consider additional ones only in exceptional cases. I do not believe that this is such an exceptional case, because it is inaccessible to most readers it is not offering significant unique content beyond the official site that is there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:04, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply because adding a official link is helpful to readers, it doesn't mean adding every link that exist in the world would be useful. Appeal to ridicule makes for poor discussion on talk page and I would ask you to try such things in the future, as it work counter to civil discussion and consensus-building.
    I believe that this is such an exceptional case because A), there is a significant and unusual large number of users effected with no other options for official link. B), there article history has shown a consistent number of good-faith edits which tries to improve the article by including alternative link to the blocked official link. There is clear evidence that many readers would find an alternative link an improvement to the article, and the article talk page consensus demonstrate this. C), it is more accessible than a pay-wall, region restricted, or a physical book. The steps to access the content is simple, free, and repeatable. Calling it unaccessible because its rich media and requires a technology that is a free single click install, seem not only unfair but wrong. Most readers can access it if they want to. Belorn (talk) 09:10, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And I believe it does not. It is unrealistic to ask editors who want to know more to install a piece of software just for that one case, which means that standard the information is not accessible to most of our readers. Most readers do not have the software installed. There is a plethora of information about the site out there- on the Wikipedia page itself, and on pages outside of the domains controlled by the Pirate Bay (the latter making better external links than this inaccessible site). The talkpage consensus is very, very thin, the repeated attempts to include do not provide a justification, and in my opinion not overruling the consensus of WP:EL/WP:NOT. Take it up to an AN/I or an RfC, if you want, because I don't think you will find consensus for inclusion here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    altafsir.com

    This website contains mainly Islamic primary sources known as Tafsir, so just like there is a Template:Hadith-usc linking to islamic primary sources at University of South Carolina's website, this website is same as the USC webcites which has records of islamic primary sources called hadith. altafsir.com has records of islamic primary sources call tafsir. I am proposing this be whitelisted for same reason as why links from Template:Hadith-usc that go to University of South Carolina's database of islamic primary sources is whitelisted--Misconceptions2 (talk) 12:16, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done because you aren't proposing whitelisting, you're actually proposing removal of the entire site from the blacklist. This page is for requesting whitelisting of specific pages with a complete URL path, not for requesting that an entire blacklisted domain be let in.
    To request removal from the blacklist, you will need to post a request at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#Proposed removals, after searching the archive of that page to learn why it was blacklisted in the first place. Given the abusive history of this domain though (it's also globally blacklisted, so de-listing here on en-wiki would have no effect), it's unlikely that the request to de-list would be granted.
    We can whitelist specific pages on that site that are unique and not replaceable by any alternative, which is unlikely if other Tafsir sources exist. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:39, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]


    Examiner.com - 3 specific articles

    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

    • Proof that our country is founded on Natural Law & Consent of the Governed www.examiner.com/article/proof-our-country-and-the-us-constitution-is-founded-upon-natural-law
    • Natural Law:How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July,1776 1/2 www.examiner.com/article/natural-law-how-we-the-people-got-to-the-4th-of-july-1776-part-1-of-2
    • Natural Law:How WE THE PEOPLE got to the 4th of July,1776 2/2 www.examiner.com/article/natural-law-how-we-the-people-got-to-the-4th-of-july-1776-part-2-of-2

    This is my own personal research and this information would enhance https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_law

    I am tired of Progressive Educated Elites trying to rewrite history. Wikipedia's rules inherently give an advantage to Progressive Educated Elites rewriting history. Progressive Educated Elites (often paid political operatives) then rewrite history to conform with the progressive agenda and goals, and then post them in alleged "Scholarly" publications. Wikipedia rules make it virtually impossible to refute these fraudulent rewrites. First, in not having credentials and/or access to these publications and/or not having the time, money and resources to gather a the basis for a rebuttal and then get it published in a white listed publication. To wit, this is a formula that makes Wikipedia complicit in the destruction of the American masses knowledge of Natural Law and the gradual dissolution of the American Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    CynicalPatriot— Preceding unsigned comment added by CynicalPatriot (talk • contribs) 06:12, 13 October 2014‎

    You say 'this is my own personal research', and 'I am tired of Progressive Educated Elites trying to rewrite history' .. I am sorry if I misunderstand, but it appears that you are here suggesting to use your own research and publication to prove a point on Wikipedia, and have published that research on a site that has no editorial oversight ánd provides you with a cash advantage for every incoming reader. That does not make these sources suitable as a reliable source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Rejected because you're not here to build the encyclopedia and per WP:TRUTH. MER-C 05:30, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.cbronline.com

    cbronline.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

    Triggered by \bcbronline\.com\b on the local blacklist

    Explain why the site should be whitelisted - The bot is simply making a mistake and incorrectly matching cbronline.com

    Explain which articles would benefit from the addition of the link - The article Richard Prout, which is a bio of the living entrepreneur but has nothing whatsoever to do with the bcbonline match.

    Provide the specific link to the page you're requesting be added - www.cbronline.com/news/intracus_bundles_staff_browser_with_netscape_product.

    Thank you for your help. Very new to this, so please excuse. What happens next?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.55.212.63 (talk • contribs)

    no Declined. There is no mistake, cbronline.com is the targetted link. As this is from the news section of cbronline, I expect that it can be replaced with the primary report. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:48, 8 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    moneyweek.com/john-studzinski-banker-philanthropist-and-anglophile/

    Good biographical article on John J. Studzinski. I'd like to use it to flesh out the current Wikipedia article. Also, it gives some quotes from a 2002 article in The Times, which is unavailable for public view except at institutions which subscribe to The Times digital archive. Softlavender (talk) 23:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    {{declined}. If you need it only for quotes in The Times, then you should cite The Times directly, regardless of whether it is available to non-subscribers. That is better than indirectly referencing it like you are suggesting. ~Amatulić (talk) 14:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.kavkazcenter.com

    kavkazcenter.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

    Relevant source for articles relating to the insurgency in the North Caucasus. The site's own article displays a prominent blacklist warning. 3hunna (talk) 09:10, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    We will not whitelist the main domain as such, we need a full page, e.g. an index.htm, index.php or about.htm. Please see /Common requests for more info. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:49, 3 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    no Declined, no response. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.bollyguide.com

    bollyguide.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

    Relevant source for articles relating to the Heropanti box office collection and many more bollywood movies box office collections, reviews & news.

    no Declined. You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.museum.moedling.at.tf

    Why? It is a website of a museum for an Austrian city named and in Mödling and refers just to its history. Which articles? At least http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M%C3%B6dling

    Further you can see that the home page of this city refers to its history museum also to the above website: www.moedling.at/system/web/gelbeseite.aspx?typ=8&bezirkonr=0&detailonr=221166536&menuonr=221031552 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esilence (talk • contribs) 14:58, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    the website is the homepage of the museum of that city. please someone check and put to whitelist. Esilence (talk) 09:51, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    If you're asking why the site was blacklisted, then the answer to this should be searchable. You can search for it as well as anybody else can.
    You seem to want the entire website removed from the blacklist. That's not what this page is for. If you want the entire site to be removed from the blacklist, ask at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. -- Hoary (talk) 11:45, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    at.tf is a redirect domain, and blacklisted on meta. Generally, redirect sites are not to be used per this part of the external links guideline. You are looking for http://home.tele2.at/museum/, the non-redirected site. no Declined --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:56, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    thank you Dirk, that helps me alot! how did you find out that it was redirect? So I will change the link on wiki article to that what you posted. cheers Esilence (talk) 12:21, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The .at.tf tld was blacklisted on meta for practically being a redirect site - many of the pages on that site are like the pages on .tk, they only contain a boilerplate page which loads the data from somewhere else on the web (they generally contain a <frame source=real-url>-code. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:07, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    functionspace.org

    functionspace.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

    It has been brought to our notice by one of our users (Anirban Bandyopadhyay) that we have been blacklisted by Wikipedia. In a recent event, Function Space data wasn’t fetched by Wikipedia. Function Space is a social learning network for science. It has a wealth of knowledge for science lovers, that is shared by users through articles and discussions. There have been instances where we have provided authentic, detailed, and crisp information to our users on topics that fall under the umbrella of science. Articles related to Math and Science can get more information from the platform. It would be really helpful, if you could specify the exact nature of violation that led to the ban. We'll do everything in our capacity so that we can avoid such cases in the future. Wikipedia has been a one stop information center for all topics under the sun and it is very important for a site like ours to not be blacklisted on your esteemed platform. Since it is a user-driven site, I request you to lift the ban on us. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslost (talk • contribs)

    You may want to review why this was added: continued spamming even after promising to stop: MediaWiki_talk:Spam-blacklist#functionspace.org. If that promise is so hollow, then this has a rightful place on the blacklist. Specific links which can be shown to have merit on a certain page on Wikipedia can be whitelisted. Certainly not the whole domain: no Declined. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:34, 17 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Hello, thank you for sharing your feedback with us. These postings were not done from Function Space team. If this repeats, we will definitely take a legal action against the one who is doing it. Thank you.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Lotuslost (talk • contribs)

    In a way, it does not matter who abused the link on Wikipedia - the spam-blacklist is built to stop the abuse. The people who were pushing the link were asked to stop, they promised to stop, but did not (or did, but others continued). --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:18, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    cc.bingj.com

    cc.bingj.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 Hi, there I just made a user talk page (here), but the site won't allow me post the links. Any help please? Thanks... Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:11, 23 September 2014 (UTC) PS The offending links: (Yahoo cache) and (Yahoo cache). Reason: Personal user page. The site won't let me post the link that I'm applying to get permission. Ironic, no, this vicious circle? Instruction: truncate each b from cc.bingj.comb. Asoccer maniac (talk) 20:21, 23 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done. If this is for your personal user page, then use the link without the 'http' prefix. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:34, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    And how may I do that? I don't undestand. Asoccer maniac (talk) 23:39, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    brianwernham.wordpress.com

    brianwernham.wordpress.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

    The page http://brianwernham.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/cheesegrater-building-at-122-leadenhall-street-design-based-on-wolfram-rule-122/, Cheesegrater building at 122 Leadenhall Street at http://brianwernham.wordpress.com/2014/06/23/cheesegrater-building-at-122-leadenhall-street-design-based-on-wolfram-rule-122 is directly relevant to the page 122 Leadenhall Street This design insight is important for architectural students.

     Not done, nothing to do. You had no problem posting those links here, so, obviously, they are not blacklisted. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:36, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Expired requests (not done due to lack of reply)

    www.scriptureearth.org/00i-Scripture_Index.php?sortby=lang&name=emp&ROD_Code=00000#

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

    I'm working on the page for the Emberá people, in which I mention the bible translation into the Emberá language. In addition to citing the publication directly, I use this website as a gateway to sources of information about it, including sample readings.--Sublimesam (talk) 15:27, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    •  Unlikely Wikipedia talk:Articles for creation/Emberá People was the article you were working on (I fixed the syntax so the link would work). I see it went live at Emberá people on 13 December 2013. Congratulations! But sorry, Wikipedia is not intended to be a means of sending visitors to your "gateway to sources of information about it". I believe your request will be denied. Wbm1058 (talk) 00:03, 9 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I might be able to go for this actually. Would need explanation on how it is outside WP:ELNO item 1 though. Stifle (talk) 13:55, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK, I'll review this one further. scriptureearth.org was globally blacklisted at 02:31, 29 October 2009, per a Wikipedia:WikiProject Spam/LinkReports/scriptureearth.org report last updated on that date. It's easy to see the issue. An editor was deemed to be spamming many category:languages articles with links to a site which had Bible translations into all of the linked languages, e.g., see this diff, which was reverted four days later. Then in February 2010, this information was added by the same editor, just without an external link this time. That was allowed to stand, as today Mazatecan languages has a section #Media that still mentions that the New Testament is available on that website, but without the link to it. Meanwhile there is also a link to a Bible translation on Jehovah's Witnesses' site, albeit a dead-but-likely fixable-link, leading one to ask why if links to the Scripture Earth website owned by Wycliffe Canada are not acceptable, links to the JW site are. A look at the http://www.jw.org/en/publications/ drop-down menu shows that there is the potential for "spamming" a lot of our languages articles with links to Jehovah's Witnesses' interpretation of the Bible. And of course we would not want to be seen discriminating against other religions, so if we let one holy book translation onto languages articles then we probably should allow them all. I'm not sure I see the case for selective whitelisting here; I doubt that the Bible is the only book ever published in this language. I think either we allow this practice globally, or we don't allow it at all. We have an entire area of the encyclopedia that covers this – see List of Bible translations by language. Note that that article has just one external link:
      • WorldBibles.org lists over 14,000 internet links to Bibles, New Testaments and portions in over four thousand languages.
    I just don't see it, but "Any site that does not provide a unique resource beyond what the article would contain if it became a featured article" is a little unclear to me too. Wbm1058 (talk) 22:19, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    google.com/cse/ and all pages whose url begins with it

    google.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 was pointed here after making what was apparently a misplaced request for removal from the blacklist. It seems all links to Custom Search Engines on Google were blacklisted for some reason. However, I have created two of these that I hope to turn into tools here/on Tool Labs/wherever. I can't do that, though, until the following 2 URLs are whitelisted: www.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=003285824986883509686:2wwqv9fcnrk and www.google.com:443/cse/publicurl?cx=003285824986883509686:_shqdwlwdxk

    Yes, they were blacklisted for a good reason: they were abused, and they have a high potential for being abused. You should be able to use them on Tool Labs without problem, if you want to use them here the specific links need to be whitelisted. Would you mind disclosing what the tools are for (for the record of the whitelisting)? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:05, 31 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.gayot.com/restaurants/wing-lei-las-vegas-nv-89109_4lv050901-09.html

    gayot.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

    Following previous gayot links (1, 2, 3, etc.), I seek to use it in Richard Chen which has information duplicated nowhere else. These discussions ok whitelisting gayot.com links. Richardc020 (talk) 20:00, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    What makes that a definitive source according to Wikipedia:Reliable sources? Just b/c it is not listed elsewhere means that it should be used, it needs to be a reliable source. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:31, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or stale requests

    www.churchesattheleighsandlittlewaltham.co.nr

    This link is to the Wordpress website/blog of a group of three churches in Essex, UK as referenced from, for example,Great Leighs. The "free" domain of .co.nr is used simply to reduce costs. We request that the link is whitelisted on this specific Great Leighs page.

    Why not use the wordpress: http://patwatkinson1.wordpress.com/ ? --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:40, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is the fallback position no doubt if the preferred and formal address for this website is deemed unacceptable due to its use of the .co.nr domain. This formal address has been in use for some years without any problem or comment. It would be useful if someone could explain why this domain is blacklisted. Thanks for your assistance and advice. --Trevor Wright — Preceding undated comment added 16:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The .co.nr tld is blacklisted because it basically is a redirect-tld (as you see with this site, practically everything is not hosted on this tld but elsewhere, like .co.cc and (to a large extend) .tk - this tld does not differ from what tinyurl does). In principle, we do not use redirect sites, per WP:ELNEVER - they allow linking to sites that are blacklisted, they can be used in an instable way (fine today, tomorrow changed into a phishing site), and one does not necessarily know what happens inbetween (redirecting through another redirect) etc. That is why redirect sites are blanket blacklisted, and we are generally very weary in allowing them - there is generally no reason to use them, use the end address instead. That is what I advise here as well (even though in this case the address is stable and the redirect transparent). --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    OK, happy to take your advice - Great Leighs page updated. Thanks for your help Dirk. --TrevorWright (talk) 17:17, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Nowpublic.com

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

    I'm proposing the whitelisting solely for use in the article about nowpublic.com to link to the site. I strongly support maintaining the site on the blacklist for most purposes, but it should be linked in the article about the topic. Whitelisting this wouldn't benefit a specific person. We normally link to a company website in articles about them and this shouldn't be different. Requesting that the specific link nowpublic.com be whitelisted for the article NowPublic. Niteshift36 (talk) 19:30, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined for the same reason as your request above is declined. Furthermore, for technical reasons, the whitelist and blacklist can't restrict a link so it can be used only in one article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:32, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • See above. Now the url nowpublic.com redirects to the examiner one. Niteshift36 (talk) 22:35, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes indeed, nowpublic.com redirects to examiner.com. Precisely which page within nowpublic.com do you want whitelisted? -- Hoary (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Request withdrawn (here. -- Hoary (talk) 01:54, 10 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    "Sissy Man Blues" on YouTube

    Site:

    I'd like to whitelist that link only. It's to a youtube recording of an 1934/1935 Decca record and it's to put it in the link of a Reference only. The article in question is about the Americana blue's musician Kokomo Arnold. I've added the reference (number 4 on the article's Reference List), but would like to link to it to so it can be heard in context. Thank you CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:39, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    You mean http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq49tS75xCA - the redirect site, youtu.be, is the one that is disallowed (see WP:ELNEVER), not the full link. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    umm, err sorry don't quite know what you mean, I just went to the "Share" area of YouTube and took the link. If there is some otehr way to add te link to the reference I'd be fine with that. CyntWorkStuff (talk) 04:54, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The share are gives you the shortened link 'youtu.be/bq49tS75xCA' unless you ask for the full link (I can't check, I have no access to YouTube here). That shortened link on youtu.be automatically brings you forward to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bq49tS75xCA. That link is to exactly the same video, only avoiding the shortener. You should use the full link that I use here, not the shortened one. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    FIXED Thank you very much for your assistance, the way you suggested worked just fine. Is there anything else I need to do with this entry, or will an Administrator move it to wherever it's now supposed to be? CyntWorkStuff (talk) 06:15, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     Request withdrawn - other solution found. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:22, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.pulau-pangkor.com

    I don't understand why this site is blacklisted - the blacklist page gives no details of when or why. I was trying to link www.pulau-pangkor.com/bruas.html to Beruas. I looked at the site - it all seems perfectly harmless. What do you know I don't?John of Cromer (talk) mytime= Sat 02:30, wikitime= 01:30, 4 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    offshore-technology.com/projects/corrib/

    {{withdrawn}}

    *offshore-technology.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 link is being used in two article Corrib gas project and Geography of Ireland to provide details about the gas finds off the Irish coast. I cannot see a problem with the informational aspects of this website though there are numerous links in other existing articles about different gas and oil fields and related articles to this domain.
    • I can't find any discussion about blacklisting this domain but see that they offer some procurement services for contractors. That may be an issue, but they contain extensive quantities of useful data about offshore oil and gas that does not appear to be available elsewhere. Perhaps whitelisting the informational areas and blacklisting the promotional areas would be a solution if possible.
    • Personally I am only interested in the mention link but others may be more interested in keeping the other link. Some indication why this was blacklisted would also be good. ww2censor (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I changed the refs on Corrib to another reference - I believe as you definitely have a better understanding of the subject may see if they are valid. I was spammed by the CBROnline people, owner of the -technology domains; they have been spamming wiki left and right.

    To make things worse, I saw that hydrocarbons-technology.com is linked too... must be from the same spammer family. Legionarius (talk) 17:01, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    I've replaced the rest of these links, so there is now no need to white list. ww2censor (talk) 10:06, 4 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are more than 130 articles using offshore-technology.com for references. Changing them one-by-one is not a solution, so the site should be de-blacklisted. All this blacklisting had created more harm than this spammer ever has done. Beagel (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • support whitelisting. Dormskirk (talk) 20:22, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
     On hold. Temporarily de-blacklisted pending further investigation. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:42, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com Orden Ogan interview

    For Orden Ogan article. Haven't found another with the same info and searching for phrases didn't reveal any obvious plagarism.Jhansonxi (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Request withdrawn (diff) - alternative found. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    z3.invisionfree.com Mike Pollock interview

    It contains some useful information for the Sonic X article; it appears not to be replicated anywhere else. It appears to be a legitimate Sonic forum, but I can't cite it yet because of where it's hosted. Tezero (talk) 04:57, 24 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    FWIW, the article's a GAN and this source not being accepted may obstruct its review. Tezero (talk) 06:04, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    This is urgent; the article has gotten a GA review and this source being blacklisted is the only thing holding it up. Please try to address this, someone. Tezero (talk) 22:51, 6 July 2014 (UTC) False alarm; I found some (though not all) of the information elsewhere. I would, however, still like this to be looked at whenever someone gets around to it. Tezero (talk) 01:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/new-internet-word-game-now-available

    • WITHDRAWN I have received a reprint from the author of the article as published in the Centerville-Washington Times, so no need to whitelist this link! Thank you for your consideration though. Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: After reading other posts on this page about examiner.com articles, I decided to search once again for any alternatives and then completely re-write my rationale here, carefully and completely - and at great length. Dcs002 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC) [reply]

    1. Explain why - This site should be whitelisted because:
    • It contains a game review and an interview with the game designer, who is the subject of the WP article.
    • It is written by Danielle Coots, who has real writing credentials (CBS local Cleveland, mostly fluff pieces, freelance work for area newspapers, including local news in the Xenia Gazette), though not a crack journalist. Still, she herself has a journalistic reputation of her own, and to some degree she has to maintain journalistic integrity to keep her job with CBS and her freelance work going. Given that, I think her name might be enough to make this a RS, or as near as one can get from an article in examiner.com.
    • The subject of the WP article is himself a Wikipedian, and he told me about this examiner.com article when I asked him if he could point me to any independent reviews of his games, though he warned me it was a blacklisted source. Since he called my attention to the article (well, he gave me the search terms to look it up myself), that tells me that he does not have any problem with the contents of the article. IMO this a RS, if only for his quotes in the article. The review aspect of the article is kinda fluff, but it contains a very good description of the game. (I tried it myself - it's free online in beta.)
    • This article appears to be the only review of this game on the web.
    • The game's designer (subject of the WP article) has another game with very limited press coverage (though one source is USA Today - it changed how Cartoon Network and Nickelodeon both ran their websites) and two others with no sources that I can find, but he has authored several gaming books that have been well reviewed and sourced. The wider coverage of his reviewed books is making the article disproportionately about his books, though he identifies primarily as a game designer.
    • Game reviews like this just seem harder to find than book reviews - most from the mid 90s through 2003 or so. You prolly get that excuse a lot though :(
    • This article shows that the subject is once again active in game design, or that he has made a one-off release (more likely), which is still a significant part of his game design career. It might be the last game he designs and releases, or it might be a new beginning. The game itself is not notable enough to have good sourcing, but it is important to include it in the WP article for these reasons.
    • The article contains quotes from the subject about a new business partnership he developed to design and release this game and their ongoing efforts to improve the game and move it past its beta version, which is its current status. Those quotes would be of interest to readers who are fans of his work. (Any implications the quotes might have about his possible return to game design would be WP:CRYSTAL of course, and there is no speculation in the article, but readers are free to speculate, as fans do, and fans love information.)
    • Exposure of readers to the examiner.com site will be minimal - only in the list of references.
    • I am in no way affiliated with the author of the article on examiner.com, nor with examiner.com itself, nor with the designer who is the subject of the article. I am just a guy who is trying to expand and improve a worthy article as an alternative to deletion. (I found out he was also a Wikipedian after I began my participation in the AfD discussion, which I think will end with a keep or no consensus. Some have suggested draftify. It has been expanded greatly during the AfD discussion, and there is no consensus to delete, so the issue isn't going to go away.)
    • NOTE: I see no reason to actually make the url a live link. All I want to do is to cite the source so it's verifiable. If there is a proper way to do that without whitelisting the article, I will be happy do that.
    • NOTE: The WP article contains the information from the examiner.com article already. It is cited incompletely though, with no link and no URL - essentially a placeholder citation. It contains roughly the content I wanted to use from this article.
    1. Explain which articles - J. Hunter Johnson, which is being expanded as an alternative to deletion, but needs sources like this one.
    2. Provide the specific link - www.examiner.com/article/new-internet-word-game-now-available

    Dcs002 (talk) 18:20, 14 August 2014 (UTC) Edited Dcs002 (talk) 10:38, 15 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Additional comment: Since this hasn't been reviewed yet, I should add that this article first appeared in a print newspaper, and it is not available from that source online. The newspaper cite is the Centerville-Washington Times, June 20, 2013, p. 10A This was also provided by the Wikipedian subject of the interview as the original source of the review, which is reprinted at the url I am asking to whitelist. I neglected to mention it earlier, but I think it gives it a little more credibility. Sorry this is so long, but I really want to be thorough. Thanks. Dcs002 (talk) 14:03, 18 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Note: we do not need the source to be online available - Additional thoughts: can examiner.com re-print that article (I presume that the Centerville-Washington Times has the copyright on the original article), and why do we have to link to a copy on a site where the re-publisher gets paid for the incoming links whereas the original is 'freely available' (or, actually credits the original publisher). Note that re-publishing (scraping) of (sometimes copyrighted) information on examiner.com in order to earn money 'over the back of others' is a part of the issues with examiner.com. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:39, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    *** Thank you for your response. Unfortunately, the examiner.com article does not reference the Centerville-Washington Times article at all. The subject of the article (the Wikipedian) is the one who told me it had been originally printed in that paper. I have only his word to go on. I don't know first-hand what it says or that it is identical. I have not seen the article in that newspaper myself, and it is not available from their website or anywhere else I have looked online. I had assumed the author, Danielle Coots, probably retained the copyright. If she were caught violating the copyright by double-dipping with her own article, she stands to lose her career as a journalist.

    I should stop saying he told me about this article. He posted it in response to my request for independent sources during the AfD. His user name is JHunterJ. Here is exactly what he said:
    There was an article in a local paper ("Centerville resident develops word game on the web" by Danielle Coots in the Centerville-Washington Times, June 20, 2013, p. 10A) that covered me directly, in connection with another online puzzle-game, Quizgle. It was republished online, but on a site that is apparently on WP's blacklis. Googling "New internet word game now available" coots will bring it up.
    Again, I am content to cite this article in any way that is appropriate, without live links, or even on JHunterJ's word that it is an exact reprint if that is permissible. (I can see how that would be preferable in many ways.) Would it be appropriate for JHunterJ to add the citation for the print article himself? I've already written the content - it just needs proper sourcing. He's the one who has actually read it. He has been very careful during this process to answer only fair questions and not try to influence anyone. Thanks again. Dcs002 (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    WITHDRAWN I withdraw this request, as I have received a reprint of the original print article from the author, Danielle Coots. (It is verbatim the same article as appears on the examiner.com website.) There is no further need to whitelist the article. Thank you for your consideration, and for all the work you and your fellow admins do here. You are important gatekeepers, and I appreciate it! Dcs002 (talk) 00:54, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    www.avoiceformen.com/international-conference-on-mens-issues-detroit-june-26-28-2014/

    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

    Announcement for a conference coming up in the next month with the potential for news coverage and may be cited on a number of articles of people that are appearing: Warren Farrell, Erin Pizzey, Miles Groth, Barbara Kay, Karen Straughan, Anne Cools, Paul Nathanson, Stefan Molyneux, and perhaps more. --Netoholic @ 07:35, 27 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

     Stale, and OBE. Wikipedia articles should not be used for reporting a schedule of upcoming events anyway. ~Amatulić (talk) 22:55, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    companydirectorcheck

    Talk:Banc_De_Binary#Blacklisted_Links_Found_on_Banc_De_Binary details a bot finding links on the blacklist on the corresponding page. There doesn't seem to be any log entry pertaining to that blacklist entry, so it's hard to know if this is a false positive, if the use of the site on Banc de Binary is appropriate, or if those links should actually be removed. What should I do next? Pinkbeast (talk) 16:24, 12 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    OK. Since it was used on that page for other reasons, how can I sort this out? Pinkbeast (talk) 09:54, 14 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    The normal process is simply to find a better source. Guy (Help!) 18:37, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    Processing time

    Why do these requests take so long to be addressed? There aren't that many of them, and it seems like a pretty straightforward process. Tezero (talk) 17:16, 30 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    There is only very limited manpower, and there is actually some work behind it - will the whitelist re-enable spamming (we can't whitelist the domain - that negates the blacklist often), are there better alternatives (we are not linking to a unreliable, spammy site if the information is available from elsewhere), is the editor a genuine editor (there is the occasional spammer trying to get their links whitelisted, though mostly it is obvious), is the site a redirect (then the proper link has to be found and used), questions asked to the whitelisting-requestor stay unanswered for a long time (which shows how important it is sometimes .. ??), etc. We are all just volunteers here, and with only 3 or 4 active editors here the requests stay sometimes here for months. Help would be appreciated (and even more on the blacklist, there is a lot of spam that does not get blacklisted, which is way worse than not being able to use the occasional good link). --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Surely there's a difference between sites like the Examiner that just aren't very reputable and ones that are known to host viruses, though... Could I at least help with the backlog myself while I wait for mine to get covered? Tezero (talk) 04:02, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is - but still. Request for the 'official site for the subject of a page' generally results in the return question 'do you have a link to the index.htm or an about page that is suitable' (often with no re-response; we simply can't whitelist the plain domain due to either negating the blacklist or the link being the problem in the first place), requests for whitelisting of redirects (youtu.be, google.com/cse, and even tinyurl.com) etc.
    And all input/advice is welcome, your help would be much appreciated (though expect a rather steep learning curve, there is often a lot behind a blacklisted link that is not always visible ..). --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    Fondation Louis Vuitton

    To be able to link to the site of Fondation Louis Vuitton, a museum and cultural centre in Paris, what would be the best way forward: have it whitelisted here, or amend the regex which blacklists it? Superp (talk) 07:59, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    @Superp: - What is the link (if you leave off the 'http://' you will be able to save the link here). It is difficult to suggest a proper way of action without knowing (whether it is a spammed site, or an accidental-catch (we've had A LOT of Louis Vuitton spam; likely for fake items). --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:34, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry about that. The link is www.fondationlouisvuitton.fr . If you want a quick read up from an independent source, the Art Newspaper has a story on the institute. Superp (talk) 13:52, 20 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    That link is indeed caught by the wide net regarding the massive 'handbag/fake-louis-vuitton-bags'-spam from China. The rule on meta has been adapted so it does not cover this specific domain, as it was tripped on multiple wikis. Thanks! --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:44, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks! Superp (talk) 14:41, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    Other projects with active whitelists
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=645471677"