MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Beetstra (talk | contribs) at 11:24, 10 March 2015 (→‎aikido-sydney.com.au: re). 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|650744814#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)


    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]

    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]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 09:33, 10 March 2015 (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]

    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]

    • I'm not going to whitelist the entire domain. I will need a specific proposal on what to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 13:37, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Stale Stifle (talk) 17:09, 24 February 2015 (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]
    • If the regex revision is not going ahead I'll need a specific URL to whitelist please. Stifle (talk) 09:34, 10 March 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.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]

    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]
    • We will not whitelist the entire domain but fisheaters.com/traditionalcatholicism.html could be done. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Schoemann: That is a WP:OTHERLINKS-argument (although that was written against spammers, the base argument is the same). We do not include links because other pages have them, we include links because "... its inclusion is justifiable according to this guideline and common sense. The burden of providing this justification is on the person who wants to include an external link." (from [[WP:EL|the external links guideline, with link-adaptation). This fails WP:ELNO #1. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:23, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Beetstra, I'm not sure what you mean about not including links "because other pages have them." What pages do you mean? I'm lost. Me, I think the Fisheaters site is relevant and should be included according to the guidelines on the External Links page you linked to. It doesn't fit any of the criteria for "Links normally to be avoided," but does fit the criteria for "What to link" and "What can normally be linked." Specifically, the site is accessible; proper in the context of the article; is functional, has been functional since 1996, and is likely to remain functional; has "accurate material that is relevant to an encyclopedic understanding of the subject and cannot be integrated into the Wikipedia article" because of the sheer volume of information, etc. Stifle, thanks for considering this whitelisting request. I think, though, that the "Being Catholic" section of the site would be the best part of the site to link to, if possible (*/beingcatholic.html). That is the section that has vast amounts of information on traditional Catholic practices (i.e., practices of the priests of the "in-communion-with-Rome" FSSP, ICK, etc., and their parishioners -- all equally pertinent to Catholics who worship "outside the structures," say, with the SSPX). Schoemann (talk) 11:18, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Schoemann, your argument was 'And there are subjects without official sites that do get links, such as "Orthodox Judaism."' - that is the WP:OTHERLINKS argument I am referring to. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:49, 12 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh, I see. Sorry, I was lost there for a second. Actually, though, it wasn't my argument that because sites are linked to from "Orthodox Judaism," then, therefore, sites should be linked to from "Traditional Catholicism." I'm saying that FishEaters should be linked to for the same reasons that sites are linked to from the Orthodox Judaism entry -- i.e., to allow Wikipedia readers to have easy access to more information that couldn't possibly be incorporated into the entry for Traditional Catholicism, consistent with the "What to link" and "What can normally be linked" sections of the page you linked to here, and as evident in the links from the "Orthodox Judaism" article. Rather than a link to the FishEaters site itself (if that's seen as not a good idea), a link to the "Being Catholic" section would be very helpful to people wanting to learn about the topic. I nominate the FishEaters site for this because it is so comprehensive, internally hyperlinked really well which makes it good for study, is relevant to any kind of traditionalist Catholic out there (the in communion with Rome types, the SSPX types, the sedevacantists, etc.), is reliable, accurate, the oldest traditional Catholic site out there, etc. One serious problem for traditional Catholics and people wanting to learn about it all is that most entries pertaining to Catholicism deal only with the Novus Ordo way of doing things (or, even worse, talk about present-day traditional practices and phenomena as things Catholics "used to do" or how things "used to be"), but traditional Catholics have their own calender, Ordo Missae, sacramental rites, etc. Trying to emend articles to include traditionalists always ends up in edit wars, with the traditionalists' way of doing things treated as a "minority position" of no importance, even though Pope Benedict XVI published "Summorum Pontificum," and even though priestly societies like the FSSP and ICK exist, as do traditional-style parishes of other types, and even though traditionalism is the fastest growing "sector" of Catholicism in the West. So having a link to FishEaters is a way to address all that. Schoemann (talk) 04:34, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, as I said, is that extra information needed for the encyclopedic understanding of the subject. That is what I question. If people want to get a more-than-encyclopedic understanding of a subject, or even more .., then there is always a search engine to help you find such information. We are not an indiscriminate source of information. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:33, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see Wikipedia as an "indiscriminate source of information" either; I see it as a discriminating one, and as "the" site people go to to learn about a topic, which is exactly why I vote for including a link to FishEaters at the "Traditionalist Catholicism" entry. I mean, why be less informative rather than more informative? I'm not getting it. There's the issue, too, of what I mentioned above, how offering even an encyclopedic understanding of traditional Catholicism is made difficult because of editors with an agenda disallowing a more comprehensive approach to Catholic entries. The entry for traditional Catholicism, though, is set up for the very purpose of teaching about the topic. If the traditional "take" on things like the Rosary or other sacramentals, sacramental rites, the understanding of Vatican II's documents, etc., can't be related on entries for those topics (again, with the trad approach being allowed by Summorum Pontificum, and held by the priests of the FSSP, ICK, etc.), I'd hope at least a link to a website that explains all of that could be had on the entry for traditional Catholicism itself. Schoemann (talk) 21:00, 17 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]

    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]

    • Please clarify whether this is a reliable source. Also the report appears to be hosted in violation of copyright. Stifle (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2015 (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]

    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.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]

    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]

    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] [1] 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]
      • www.philosophytalk.org/index.php would be sufficient though it will reset itself to www.philosophytalk.org. I did a check on what exactly the spamming was and apparently several accounts were adding links from some wiki articles about particular people to Philosophy Talk shows they had been interviewed on; inappropriate and probably a side effect of them interviewing too many people who have wikipedia articles about themselves. --Erp (talk) 17:15, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    1989 Taylor Swift Review (www.ezinearticles.com)

    The url has important information on Taylor Swift's new album, and could provide a source for many of the unsourced and questioned pieces of all articles pertaining to her new album, including the Taylor Swift page itself. Even though it is on EzineArticles, it does seem to be just as reliable as some of the other articles used for sources. Cajalden (talk) 01:21, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • This does not appear to be a reliable source. It is very likely that a higher-quality source could be found relating to such a popular artist. no Declined, please use a better source or alternatively establish a consensus at WP:RSN that this is reliable, and refile your request here. Stifle (talk) 09:36, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    lemairesoft.sytes.net

    The actual page is http://lemairesoft.sytes.net:1944/pages/page.aspx?univid=329371 Mjroots (talk) 22:15, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    All but three of the facts has now been sourced from the Miramar website. Article is now live, but I'd still like to be able to give an exact date for the change of name and details of her final fate if possible. Mjroots (talk) 18:11, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 09:35, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Stifle: - it's a WP:SPS, but that doesn't necessarily mean it is unreliable. Much of the information presented there is borne out by other sources that do meet RS, therefore I'm prepared to say that it is reliable enough to be used. As I've posted above, the use of this source has been reduced (probably by about 2⁄3), meaning that it is only required to reference three facts. Mjroots (talk) 18:43, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Much of the information presented there is borne out by other sources that do meet RS" .. so why not use the other sources? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:22, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • Which is what Manxruler and I have done. When creating the article, if a different source gave the information, it was used. This webpage was the last to be added as a source when creating the article, Manxruler subsequently referenced most of the info from that webpage by using the Miramar website, which is subscription only website that I don't have access to. This leaves the requested web page only needed to reference the actual date of name change from Dolly Kühling to August Wriedt, the year of her decommissioning from the Royal Navy and the year of her scrapping. Mjroots (talk) 07:42, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The year of her scrapping is covered by other sources in the article already, so I guess there's only the first two things left to ref. By the way, when I tried opening this lemairesoft.sytes.net site just now, it wouldn't respond. Don't if that's just for me. Manxruler (talk) 07:54, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Manxruler: Webpage works fine for me using Firefox, try leaving the http:// off. That source gives a month and year for scrapping (June 1951). Mjroots (talk) 08:13, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • Yeah, still no success for me. I'm using Firefox too. Miramar gave the month and year too, that's already in place in the article. So what was missing was the full date (day and month) of the name change, and the year of the decommissioning. Would be nice to have that added. Manxruler (talk) 08:31, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Done, don't see any other online sources for this (I do see .gov-sites for the rename, but no dates there). Though sources do not need to be easily accessible, or even online, I see no harm in a specific page for a specific page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:16, 17 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    freedommag.org

    Freedom Magazine is a Scientology-related publication. For the article about the magazine itself at Freedom (magazine), linking to www.freedommag.org/index.html would allow for an official link. If the index isn't going to work for some reason, www.freedommag.org/about.html would be better than nothing. Grayfell (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.facebook.com/pages/Official-The-Movielife/310003985856162

    This url is the official Facebook page of the band The Movielife. Currently an unauthorized, fan-created Wikipedia entry (found on Facebook at www.facebook.com/pages/The-Movielife/113290795351304?fref=ts) is being mistakenly considered the official and authorized page of the band. Please note that the correct and official Facebook page is tagged at the bottom of the band's official website (www.themovielife.nyc) as well. I therefore ask that the following url be whitelisted:

    • www.facebook.com/pages/Official-The-Movielife/310003985856162

    2604:2000:70A2:E700:FA1E:DFFF:FEE6:FB95 (talk) 19:52, 21 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not blacklisted - it does however fail WP:ELOFFICIAL, maybe you were reverted by XLinkBot .. I'll have a look. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:27, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    mixcloud.com links for Ankit Love

    Both these references contain recodings of Radio Interviews of the subject of the article Ankit Love by Salford City Radio a proper FM Radio station based in the United Kingdom. They would be a solid addition to add some more sourcing to article.योजनबुद्ध (talk) 00:50, 22 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined; WP:SPA request. We would be minded to consider a request from an established user. Stifle (talk) 17:06, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    A Voice for Men

    www.avoiceformen.com/gynocentrism/the-empathy-gap-is-shockingly-real/ can greatly benefit the page Androcide which has recently been blanked because not a single source refered to it by the name of "androcide" while A Voice for Men has an article that does, specifically it mentions the recent killions by Boko Haram in various rural regions. I don't know why the site was blacklisted because on various other topics such as the equivalent "Femicide" practically one source (Diana Russel) and sources that mostly quote her stating that gender neutral diseases like H.I.V. commit "femicide" while sources that have described the act of "androcide" (such as the killings as Srebrenica) are not considered to be notable for not naming, A Voice for Men is an example of a source that uses the term (per dictionary definition correctly) and the sources within the article itself are reliable and up to Wikipedia's standards. Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 20:32, 24 February 2015 (UTC) Off-Topic (but still relatively related as I've seen people refer to this in most conversations regarding content) ¿why does Wikipedia use Google exclusively as opposed to others like Bing and Yahoo! whenever something concerns a search engine? Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 07:30, 25 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    ¿Is a lack of answer an automatic "declined"? :-(
    Sincerely, --Namlong618 (talk) 08:16, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it means that administrators are busy with other tasks. Particularly when avoiceformen.com will not be whitelisted in its entirety as you are requesting, and has been declined repeatedly in the past. This page is for whitelisting requests for specific links, not whole sites. Therefore no Declined. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Hiep Thi Le/Examiner.com

    I have been adding citations for the article, Hiep Thi Le, and I have come upon this URL:

    www.examiner.com/article/chopped-contestants-hear-beer-here-on-food-network

    I thought it would be useful for the Hiep Thi Le article because it mentions, "She also appeared in the Food Network's hit show, Chopped, in the 'Beer Here!' episode, which aired 23 February 2014." However, there was no citation after this sentence. Normally I would have deleted the sentence, but since the article is a stub, I decided to do some research. From what I found, that URL mentions how Le appeared in "Beer Here!", the episode of Chopped (TV series) that was aired on February 23, 2014. Therefore, I request that the URL be added to the Whitelist please, so that I can use it as a citation for the Hiep Thi Le article.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 06:27, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have just expanded the article, Hiep Thi Le. I still think that web page must be added to the whitelist so that I may use it as a reference for the Hiep Thi Le article.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 00:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I have also placed a "citation needed" after the sentence, "She also appeared in the Food Network's hit show, Chopped, in the 'Beer Here!' episode, which aired 23 February 2014." This sentence is found on the Hiep Thi Le article, so again I'd really appreciated it if that web page be added to the white list so that I may use it as a reference for that sentence please.Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 01:43, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    no Declined because alternative sources exist for citing that simple assertion, for example this as well as IMDB (which, like examiner.com, is not considered a reliable source either, but it isn't blacklisted). ~Amatulić (talk) 04:23, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    petitions.whitehouse.gov/petition/pardon-edward-snowden/

    Proposing to Whitelist Existing WeThePeople (whitehouse.gov) Petitions and/or Remove Blacklist Entry

    In attempting to edit the talk page of the We The People article, I received the notice that one of my reference URLs was blocked. I searched both local and global lists for matching regexes, and found this one: "\bpetition(?:online|s)?\b.*" on the global list.

    ".*"? Really?? Seems a bit excessive. However well intentioned, this is most definitely an anti-spam kludge. This entry should be removed or further narrowed. If it is not removed, a whitelist entry should be created for whitehouse.gov petitions. (Yes, I read the Common Requests page, and it still doesn't excuse a massive blanket ban like ".*". The policy also does not apply to this particular case, as it is blocking perfectly valid discussion that is relevant on a talk page--i.e. "can anyone find a secondary source for this?".)

    I want to also comment on how absolutely frustrating this experience is. If you want to encourage others to contribute to Wikipedia, this is not the way to do so. Having to search a regex list for an offending URL is not user-friendly. It's especially aggravating when I'm only editing a talk page and trying to add references for proposed changes to the article. Is there no way to limit the scope of the blacklist on talk pages? Is there honestly no way to implement a user-friendly method of investigating what list entry matches and (just as importantly) why it was added to the blacklist? Right now the latter seems impossible even, as the list is plain, unadorned text, clearly meant for quick, machine-based parsing; shouldn't there be a human readable form?

    Furthermore, when adding such links to articles, is there no way to improve the software to provide a way for consensus to be built on particular URLs within the talk pages of the article, so that massive/confusing pages like this need not be muddled through by the average editor? It took me multiple submissions just to figure out where my request belonged--and I consider myself more technically inclined than your average user. Editing a massive page like this just begs for such errors. Just a thought.

    I feel it's worth mentioning that this experience has wasted a substantial portion of my time and definitely discouraged me from any future contributions. Please improve this system. 108.212.239.102 (talk) 21:58, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    This is not the issue I am addressing here. Please re-read what I wrote carefully, including the parenthetical I added (while trying to move this to the correct section). The additional work/time it has taken to do this has added an immeasurable further amount of frustration, as I had to resolve an edit conflict with you before I could post it. (Kudos on the quick response, but please recognize this is request is not covered by the link you applied, and therefore deserves a more detailed response.) 108.212.239.102 (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reread the top of this page carefully. This page is for whitelisting requests; it is not for proposed policy changes or technical help. You whitelisting request for a specific petition was denied, as have many similar whitelisting requests regarding petition sites in the past, hence the "Common requests" page. I'm not responding further. OhNoitsJamie Talk 22:38, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I am glad you have decided not to respond further; hopefully a more considerate person will do so. I have read the top of this page in full. (It's worth noting that actually the section below is precisely for technical help.) My specific request is very valid for the reasons I gave. Furthermore, my concerns/requests are multi-fold, so the "policy changes" are rather inherent to the proposition--they cannot be easily extricated, because there is a problem in the way the URL filter system works. Regardless of whether or not this is the place to note policy concerns, you could do a lot better in addressing that (the easy/obvious example would be to link where such policy concerns would belong, rather than re-link the same page I clearly indicated I already read).

    Apparently the hour+ I spent on my first post was not sufficient; let me try to be a bit more clear: (1) There are multiple compelling reasons to whitelist this particular URL, as well as others in its class: (a) as I noted above, discussion in a talk page must be allowed to share links about relevant topics -- this alone should be compelling enough, but is apparently limited by a faulty system (i.e. blanket URL bans across all pages). (b) This is a government website which certainly qualifies it as a reliable source (at least insofar as to describe what is going on in the government). The fact that it is also a petition site doesn't diminish its authoritative capacity. (c) "Whitehouse.gov" references are already present in the article, demonstrating that it is sufficient to provide information on the petitioning system itself. The requested page is of particular suitability because it serves to illustrate the utility of the system (specifically that the threshold policy of the system is not always followed, contradicting the very first few sentences of the article). It is certainly a notable petition within the scope of the article, and external links to notable petitions are very appropriate. (Currently, there is already an external link to "petitions.whitehouse.gov/homepage"--which apparently made it past the URL filter.)

    (2) The original blacklist entry itself is over-reaching: anything starting with the word "petition" should not be assumed to actually be a petition. These blanket bans inevitably cause no end of headaches. A more specific/directed approach to common petition sites is more appropriate.

    (3) The usability of the URL filtering system needs to be addressed somewhere. If this is not the place to do so, I urge someone to forward my comments above to the appropriate place, and indicate that you have done so. I realize I am extending Wikipedia:Be_bold here, but I'm also applying Wikipedia:Don't_be_inconsiderate, as well as Wikipedia:Etiquette ("Do not ignore reasonable questions."). I have made reasonable comments on a system which has caused me considerable trouble (unnecessarily). It should be enough that I have taken the time to detail the problems. Perhaps you, who is more familiar with Wikipedia than I, would be so kind to respect that and forward the issues.

    108.212.239.102 (talk) 01:02, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Petitions, including the ones on petitions.whitehouse.gov, are regularly used for soapboxing, a form of plain spamming. That is done for the plain reason of attracting people to your cause. That is why petition-sites were blanket-blacklisted (and I will argue for other similar site the same). I have recently replied to a request to delist the petition rules with two recent examples where editors were abusing petition sites.
    Basically, open petitions are at best a primary source for their existence, the active count and the text of the petition, but for that to be of interest to Wikipedia, it should be mentioned in independent sources. Anyone can open a petition, that does not make the fact that that happened encyclopeadic. If those independent sources tell about it, it negates the need for the primary source, the direct link to the petition. If the petition is closed, the fact hardly changes (and petitions.whitehouse.gov does provide for a response-page, which is not blacklisted and which provides the necessary information).
    The points are: the necessity of independent sources for the fact negates the use of the primary source and the regular abuse of these sites in direct contradiction with our policies and guidelines (soapboxing).
    You can make your case for specific links to be whitelisted, but that is not necessary for talkpages (you can discuss a link without being able to click it - copy-paste is sufficient, links that can not be saved are blacklisted for a reason). Why do you need this specific link in the article? --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:51, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    kahoot.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/

    In the process of working on Draft:Kahoot!, I have noticed that all uservoice.com URLs are blocked from being cited with {{cite web}} and friends. I can understand the main reason behind this choice because of WP:SOAP and general reliability guidelines. However, in Kahoot!'s case, it is the **official** documentation. and not just some random user forum as the name of the domain implies.

    Examples for such documents I would to cite are https://kahoot.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/498970-what-web-browser-can-i-use and https://kahoot.uservoice.com/knowledgebase/articles/357062-does-kahoot-have-an-app-for-ios-or-android

    Searching the whitelist archives for similar requests, I can see quite a few requests, some of the denied and some accepted:

    Thank you.

    Timothy G. from CA (talk) 06:28, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Also please {{re}} me as I'm not watching this page. Timothy G. from CA (talk) 06:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Template:Teresapalmerfan.com I am new to this, sorry please can you help me get this site whitelisted?

     Not done Wait to see if it is accepted as an article (which I doubt it will be; it doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG notability guidelines). OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:28, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Proposing to Whitelist a specific article on Indianetzone.com to add a reference to an existing Wikipedia article

    Hi, I am fairly new to Wikipedia but I have an article that I am trying to improve by adding a web reference. However, I got an error message saying that the link I am trying to add is blacklisted and my edit was not accepted. Can you please let me know if/how I can get this specific URL whitelisted? From my reading of the article, it appears to be a neutral description of a famous former Indian tennis player and current business person. The wikipedia article Bhargav Sri Prakash may have an opportunity to be enhanced from having this online reference as further reference for his achievements in Indian tennis in the early 1990s, which was from a time when the internet barely existed. Given that such notable historic information is much harder to trace and document through the archives of newspaper articles/magazines/journals/books etc, which are the only way to reference achievements from a pre internet era, this particular URL could benefit Wikipedia users by providing an easy way to read the reference about this notable Indian. URL is www.indianetzone.com/73/bhargav_sri_prakash.htm indianetzone.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 Thanks, Kannukutty1989 (talk) 04:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

     Not done There are plenty of better and more appropriate reliable sources available. OhNoitsJamie Talk 19:25, 7 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    aikido-sydney.com.au

    aikido-sydney.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 was blacklisted inadvertently along with sydney.com.au due to an imprecise regexp. Please whitelist it. sydney.com.au does not appear to be spammy either (any longer). aikido-sydney.com.au is also wrongly blacklisted on WOT with no comment to explain why, perhaps they used Wikipedia's blacklist. Some Aikido-related pages link or used to link to pages on this site, specifically the page about Aikido teacher Joe Thambu used to link to a page with information about an affiliated instructor Darren Friend and his dojo at aikido-sydney.com.au/the-dojo/instructors Sam Watkins (talk) 13:25, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    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]

    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]

    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]

    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]
    Ah – thank you. I'd pretty much given up on this! JG66 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    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]

    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]

    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]

    •  Denied, we don't whitelist URL shorteners. Stifle (talk) 13:45, 6 February 2015 (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]

    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.

    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]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 13:44, 6 February 2015 (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]

    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]

    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.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]

    • no Declined. Per the instructions, requests to whitelist an entire domain need to go on WT:BLACKLIST. Please re-file your request there or alternatively file a new request here specifying pages to whitelist. Stifle (talk) 13:43, 6 February 2015 (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]

    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. [[3]]

    •  Denied, the homepage, which is already linked from the article, has the same content. Stifle (talk) 13:47, 6 February 2015 (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)

    •  Denied unsigned request. Stifle (talk) 13:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    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.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]

    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]

    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]

    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]

    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]

    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]

    Withdrawn, malformed, invalid, or stale requests

    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.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]


    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]

    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]

    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]

    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]


    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]

    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]

    Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)

    Troubleshooting and problems

    myretrotv.com

    myretrotv.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

    However in attempting to add the url to Retro Television Network article, I am getting the blacklist block. I have currently comment out the url until it can be fixed. Spshu (talk) 17:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • There's no way to blacklist a URL except on certain articles; it's all or nothing. Stifle (talk) 17:08, 24 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Discussion

    I have cleared a lot of the backlog today. Stifle (talk) 16:11, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Other projects with active whitelists
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=650744814"