MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

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

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Stifle (talk | contribs) at 10:23, 17 August 2015 (→‎www.hoopsvibe.com/features/41797-joel-haywood-aka-king-handles). 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|676491079#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)


    YouTube video World's Oldest Science Journal - Objectivity #17

    • youtu.be/QE0DCaw7EDY

    youtube.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 grand look at a staple of science: the first scientific journal, talked about by the president of the Royal Society. I am using it to describe how Cassini and Hooke may have seen a shadow rather than the Great Red Spot. — Supuhstar * — 21:48, 23 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined; youtu.be is blocked as a URL shortener but the full URL is not. Stifle (talk) 14:45, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    examiner.com (two sports related pages)

    • examiner.com/article/freedom-pro-baseball-league-may-be-latest-arizona-independent-casualty
    • examiner.com/article/freedom-league-to-return-2015-says-joe-sperle

    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'd like these two articles from examiner.com to be white listed so I can use them as sources relating to the demise of the Freedom Pro Baseball League. This sports reporter seems to be reliable and his articles feature quotes and interviews related to the status of the league that I can not find in any other online sources. I had trouble even listing the links here for review so i had to remove the http:// part but you can see the content of the requested links. I know there have been issues with this website but I'd like these particular articles approved. Spanneraol (talk) 22:06, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Yes.. I'm asking for these two pages... not the entire website. Spanneraol (talk) 14:21, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    So you'll be aware that examiner.com is user-authored with no editorial oversight and not a reliable source then. no Declined Stifle (talk) 15:44, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Stifle, did you even look at the two pages I asked for or my reasons for wanting them? Or do you just summarily decline things cause you feel like it? Thats just a shitty reason you know. Some of the sports reporting on there is very good and by decent writers. The writer of these articles is a credible source, look at his bio. Don't just reject things out of hand as there is no other place to find this info. Spanneraol (talk) 12:17, 10 August 2015 (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]

    The webmaster of that site also sees Wikipedia as THE site people go to, which is why it was spammed here so relentlessly that it got blacklisted. The site's About page says it is a monograph by Tracy, full name not supplied. The site does not pass WP:RS. I understand you're new to Wikipedia, but you have asked for whitelisting of pages on this site before, with your 25th edit. We know that the owner of the site published (and probably still publishes) instructions on challenging the blacklisting. I'm sorry, but your request lacks weight given the history of the site and the lack of history you have. Guy (Help!) 14:02, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, the main author's full name is given on that page (see "How to Cite This Website"). It's Tracy Tucciarone. And it's not a monograph; it's a 501c3 charity with a board of directors and a staff (that was recently announced at the discussion forum of that site). I'm not sure what you're referring to when you talk about the owner of the site publishing (and probably still publishing) instructions on challenging the blacklisting. I've never seen anything like that. Can you point it out to me? Also, I've never asked for this site to be whitelisted before this attempt. Note the date of the request you posted; it is this same request. Schoemann (talk) 23:22, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Per consensus above, no Declined Mdann52 (talk) 12:49, 14 July 2015 (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]

    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]

    • Hey, you skipped me! Was that an oversight, or is there something more you need to know before making a decision? Yappy2bhere (talk) 07:07, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't deal with the requests systematically; in general, concise and brief listings tend to be easier to handle.
      Have you read /Common requests, on which the page you asked for is listed? Stifle (talk) 11:08, 9 June 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]

    A Voice for Men - www.avoiceformen.com/mens-rights/conscription-is-slavery/

    I am also trying to use a link from this site. It's not clear why it is banned; it seems like a fairly legitimate site. At any rate, the section I am working on is located at my sandbox. The link I am requesting is http://www.avoiceformen .com/mens-rights/conscription-is-slavery/ (I had to put a space in the url to try to get it through...well...the exact filter I'm posting here to try to get past. I'm confused.) Timothyjosephwood (talk) 21:46, 16 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Timothyjosephwood: This site was thoroughly abused (with threats to continue to abuse until the links stayed). You'll have to comment on why specifically this link is needed (is the information not available elsewhere), etc. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:43, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: I'm gathering sources for what seems will end up being its own article on sexism and conscription (or perhaps eventually sexism and the military generally). I have scholarly sources, political figures and court cases related to sexism and conscription, but I would also like to establish that there is some sort of contemporary political activism component to the issue. This article seems to fit the bill, and addresses it from a (seemingly rather) unique standpoint, as forced labor. I suppose I could get by without the source alright, but it addresses the issue of conscription so pointedly that I loath to not include it. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 15:35, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    whale.to/cancer/griffin14.html

    This site was blocked for spamming. This one page has the introductory remarks for a lecture given by G. Edward Griffin, a fringe theorist. The biographical portion of his page at Wikipedia has no reference. This would be used as the reference to the fringe author's early years. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 19:24, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • I am minded to approve this page and will do so unless someone suggests a reason not to. Stifle (talk) 12:07, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • no Declined This is the most consistently unreliable site on the entire Internet, and it has no respect for copyright either. Absolutely not. Guy (Help!) 14:05, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    lom.com/

    This site has a great resource - a glossary on investment terms, found here : www.lom.com/glossary. Shall we whitelist the site so that it can be used as a resource on wiki pages such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Investment? It is also a far better example of an offshore investment company, and should definitely replace the two examples within the external links on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Offshore_investment . They have been around for 22 years.

    For reference:
    (note, the two are not the same). Seems to be part of a large spam campaign, maybe User:Hu12 wants to have a second look at these. However, it is long time ago, it may be worth a try .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:37, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.gayot.com/beer/top10weird-beers/rogue-ales-beard-beer.html

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

    Need reference for Rogue Beard Beer, attempting to pass DYK review. — Brianhe (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    India Net Zone

    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

    I would like to check if India Netzone could be unblocked? The site is useful in creating India related articles. Specifically, I was checking an article for referencing a page on Asha Devi Aranyakam, a Padma Shri winner. --jojo@nthony (talk) 13:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    We do not handle full domain whitelistings here - only full links to specific documents on a domain are considered. If you want to have the whole domain available, please see MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 08:43, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.healthbase.com/resources/hospitals/singapore/gleneagles-hospital.html

    Wanted to use the link on Gleneagles Hospital and Medical Centre but was told it was a site on wikipedia's blacklist. I tried to find it in the global and local spam blacklists but could not find it. Please whitelist it because it provides much information pertaining to Gleneagles Hospital in Singapore. NorrisTan (talk) 05:27, 15 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    palace.com

    For reference: m:Talk:Spam_blacklist/Archive/Ukrainian_paper-writing_spam. That rule may indeed be too broad, maybe the two requests below should go on meta for an exclusion onto the rule. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Reporting this section to m:Talk:Spam blacklist#palace.com for adaptation of the rule. Here  On hold until replied there. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:08, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.lausanne-palace.com

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

    For the article Lausanne Palace, I would like to use the official website www.lausanne-palace.com which is blocked because it contains "palace.com". Can you please allow this page? Johndrew Andson (talk) 18:11, 15 April 2015 (UTC).[reply]

    • Please supply an index.html or corresponding page for us to use. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 08:38, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/

    Was apparently blacklisted recently due to the addition of many spam links, but a link to this domain existed before on Vietnam_War which was now flagged by bot. It looks like this link was added long ago, and looking at it casually it seems legitimate (relevant article which is an online copy of an article in a specialized paper magazine. I'm not sure what's the correct course of action here, but it seems to me the link should be whitelisted. (Otherwise, could someone remove it, so that the warning on Vietnam War goes away?) Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 14:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @A3nm: This was blacklisted due to an editor who has been using this site continuously and whereever suitable and unsuitable. There are some strings of edits to Vietnam war by this editor, e.g. here, here, and here which are quite examplary of the behaviour (note that the revision before the (in time) first of these strings of edits, revid, does not contain any links to this site). This link was recently blacklisted, and the editor in question has been strongly advocating himself to get it removed and/pr get links allowed on Wikipedia.
    That being said, you say here that 'it seems legitimate (relevant article which is an online copy of an article in a specialized paper magazine)' . It might be a relevant link to keep, keeping in mind whether the site is allowed to host that online copy, and whether linking to an online copy is necessary, and whether there might be other sources that are a proper reference for the statements they are on. --Dirk Beetstra T C 17:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Yes, I had understood the context. I do not know whether this is the best source, whether it is allowed to host a copy, etc. However, I am not sure why this is relevant. The link was there before the blacklisting of www.robertankony.com, and the intention of that blacklisting wasn't to affect existing links to that domain, I suppose, just preventing the excessive addition of new links. So I still think that the page I mentioned should be whitelisted, so the warning on Vietnam War can be removed. --a3nm (talk) 19:56, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Dirk Beetstra I just noticed this posting and would like to thank you very much. I am the editor in question and I acknowledge that I linked too many pages in the past, though it was with the intent to get information out. But I acknowledge, too, that some links were not adding much and were thus inappropriate. Again thank you, and perhaps if I link something in future I can do it on a page by page basis to verify its relevance, All the best Icemanwcs (talk) 19:24, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @A3nm: - the link was there before the blacklisting, and maybe it should have been removed when the link got blacklisted - blacklisting generally means that most of the links that were added were added in a spammy way, and should therefore be removed, as you can see the backlog of this page is huge, and the few volunteers that are active here sometimes don't get to it. It then relies on the bot and on volunteers that have the pages where those links are on on their watchlist. They will need to make the call whether the link can be removed without too much damage, can be replaced, or, ultimately, should be whitelisted. But there is no blanket 'it was not removed when the link was blacklisted, so it is probably good and should be whitelisted'. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: OK, someone just removed the link [2] so my request is moot. I still find it a bit silly, because the link could be a reasonable source, and it was possibly added long ago and in good faith, but I don't think it's important enough to argue about. You can close my request. Thanks! --a3nm (talk) 11:15, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    User:Mztourist I believe you mistakenly removed the edits I made yesterday to the Vietnam War Wikipedia page. The issue in question was the link to www.robertankony.com/publications/perspectives/ and not the reference Lurps: A Ranger's Dairy of Tet, Khe Sanh, A Shau, and Quang Tri which is scholarly and reliable and is recognized by the U.S. Army Center of Military History and Vietnam magazine among others. The Tet Offensive was essentially a two day battle other than most notably in Hue and some of the data reflected causalities for two months of the Vietnam War instead of confining it to the Tet Offensive. Please see the tread above by Dirk Beetstra, respectfully, Icemanwcs (talk) 05:49, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @A3nm: - yes, they were added a long time ago, but by the same editor who precipitated the final blacklisting. They may also have been added in good faith (the editor may not have been pointed to our policies and guidelines yet, though "By clicking the "Save page" button, you agree to the Terms of Use and ..."), but doing an edit in good faith does not necessarily make it right, correct, or appropriate, and hence such material is still subject to removal if it is deemed inappropriate. "could be a reasonable source"/"looking at it casually it seems legitimate" is not enough for that, our pillars set higher standards than that. As far as I can see, the material is in a journal, so we can mention that, this link is just a convenience link, hosted on a server that was spammed.
    @Icemanwcs: As shown in the diffs above, you included information, whole references, and links. Although the blacklist only blocks the addition of the links, I do think that the rest of the edit should also be properly checked - I know there were instances where the inserted information was good faith and appropriate, but there were also edits where the information that was inserted is not suitable for Wikipedia, too much detail in places where that detail is not needed, detracting from the original subject of the page. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:42, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @A3nm: and Dirk Beetstra I would like to thank you both for acknowledging that my work on Wikipedia over the years was done in good faith. It has been a learning experience and I have made mistakes. Many pages were calling for citations so I plugged in what I thought was the best source as a starting point hoping others would pile in and add or correct detail. I worked on numerous pages and created several that were successful except at times I relied too much on my primary sources. It will not be repeated but I do hope www.robertankony can be whitelisted as the sources are scholarly and would be very informative to readers on certain selective pages, e.g., Social alienation, Proactive policing, and military sites as U.S. Army Rangers and Long-range reconnaissance patrol. Respectfully, Icemanwcs (talk) 19:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    robertankony.com

    Wikipedia "Social alienation" reference #16 has the link to the article "The Impact of Perceived Alienation on Police Officer's Sense of Mastery and Subsequent Motivation for Proactive Enforcement," Policing: An International Journal of Police Strategies and Management, vol. 22, no.2 (1999): 120-32. The article is published in an international scientific journal and is the lead definition on this page (please see reference #1). I removed the link in the interim but believe the information is directly relevant to this page (especially with all controversial, highly publicized police use of force incidents). Please consider whitelisting the link. Sorry for the abbreviated link in the heading but the page wouldn't save with it being complete, Thank you, Icemanwcs (talk) 03:13, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Please provide the precise link you want whitelisted; omit the http and it will save just fine. If you still have problems put spaces after the dots. Stifle (talk) 10:39, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • [User:Stifle|Stifle]] (talk) Sorry for my late response but I've been working on other projects and then couldn't find my way back to this page. Here's the link I think should be attached to the Social alienation page as it was published in an academic journal and would provide much more detailed information to readers ://www.robertankony.com/publications/impact-perceived Thank you,Icemanwcs (talk) 08:56, 19 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think this is best considered in the round with the above request. Stifle (talk) 08:19, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Examiner.com story on lawsuit against Monsanto

    www.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 Hello. I'd like to be able to link to this link: 

       www.examiner.com/article/monsanto-sued-los-angeles-county-for-false-advertising

    I would like to use it to reference a mention of this lawsuit to support its mention on the Monsanto legal cases page. The article is titled "Monsanto sued in Los Angeles County for false advertising" and it basically summarizes the lawsuit and reports its filing. SageRad (talk) 11:40, 10 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Aaron Davidson interview - Examiner.com

    A 2011 interview, in two parts, for use in Aaron Davidson, a WP:BLP.

    • www.examiner.com/article/ceo-aaron-davidson-nasl-s-connection-with-traffic-sports-part-1-of-2
    • www.examiner.com/article/davidson-nasl-traffic-and-fifa-training-compensation-solidarity-part-2-of-2

    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 from a long interview with someone who is now prominently featured in the 2015 FIFA corruption case. I am struggling to find this info elsewhere and is it is a BLP, I would like to reference everything. Edwardx (talk) 17:55, 27 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.hoopsvibe.com/features/41797-joel-haywood-aka-king-handles

    hoopsvibe.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 article has a staggering amount of information on the professional basketball player Joey Haywood (currently writing this article), and if I cannot use this source, the amount of content on his Wikipedia page will probably be cut down by about 50%. This is a request for this specific article to be whitelisted, but I'm not sure why this website was blacklisted in the first place. Far too much information for me to miss out on. TempleM (talk) 20:49, 1 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Blocked for spamming quite some time back; therefore I would be minded to approve. Stifle (talk) 08:36, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Stifle: When will this page officially be whitelisted? I have been waiting all summer to expand this article. TempleM (talk) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
     Done Stifle (talk) 10:23, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/article/clark-s-trading-post-87-years-of-northeast-family-fun

    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 This article contains valuable, reliable, and secondary information for the article White Mountain Central Railroad. This encyclopedia article is in need of more tertiary sources. The author of the article has authored a number of similarly well-written and informative articles about other historic places, and shows no sign of a conflict of interest.--Hell on Wheels (talk) 09:27, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Hell on Wheels: - the main question with articles on examiner.com is however, is this the only source that states this, or are there other sources (even multiple) that can confirm the same statements (there is a reason why Examiner.com is on the blacklist, and that is in line with the reason why the author published his document on this server - we will hence only consider whitelisting examiner.com documents if the information is unique ánd necessary (as in: likely to be challenged)). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:15, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    By the way, I don't think that ever an article is in 'need' of tertiary sources, our articles should mainly be based on secondary sources. Tertiary sources can help establish notability etc., but that can be perfectly done with secondary sources as well (per WP:TERTIARY). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:20, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    en.vietnamitasenmadrid.com/2011/05/municipal-theatre-saigon.html

    en.vietnamitasenmadrid.com: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com I would like this page to be white-listed in order to be used as a citation for the article Municipal Theatre, Ho Chi Minh City (current capacity and features) Clicklander (talk) 12:20, 12 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=009672802819881781139:txwkuymijva

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

    I'd like to include this link in {{Find sources twl}} as a poor man's federated search for all Wikipedia Library resources. Nikkimaria (talk) 03:33, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=009672802819881781139:d0vvkjtl31e

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

    As above, federated search option for use in Wikipedia:The Wikipedia Library/Navbox and possibly other pages such as WP:TWL. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:19, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Infibeam

    infibeam.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

    Infibeam is one of the India's leading ecommerce website. Infibeam has become India's first E-commerce website to file IPO.Infibeam also owns [1][2][3] Infibeam also owns the DotTripleO domain extension. [4]

    References
    1. ^ http://profit.ndtv.com/news/corporates/article-infibeam-files-for-ipo-in-first-e-commerce-listing-777076
    2. ^ http://in.reuters.com/article/2015/07/01/infibeam-ipo-idINKCN0PB3R420150701
    3. ^ http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/business/india-business/IndiGo-and-Infibeam-file-for-Rs-3000-crore-IPOs/articleshow/47888578.cms
    4. ^ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.OOO

    — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akash207 (talk • contribs)

    •  Denied. Request does not in any way indicate how Wikipedia would benefit from having a link to this website. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.change.org/p/ellen-k-pao-step-down-as-ceo-of-reddit-inc

    change.org: Linksearch en (insource) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:fr • Spamcheck • MER-C X-wiki • gs • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced - RSN • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: search • meta • Domain: domaintools • AboutUs.com This link would be used in the article for Ellen Pao to get the exact number of signatures for the petition (see the Career section). Anarchyte 10:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For petitions: if that number is of interest then it can be found in independent sources. Do such sources exist? --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:55, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    en.mediamass.net/people/jessica-mcnamee/birthday.html

    en.mediamass.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

    This link would be helpful for the Jessica McNamee article. It provides her birthdate which has proven difficult to find otherwise. Dismas|(talk) 19:34, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Beacon Press (2 pages)

    I'd like these two pages whitelisted so I can use them for an entry on Nicola Denzey Lewis (biblical scholar) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Dithie/Nicola_Denzey_Lewis First, the subject of the entry published a book with Beacon and it makes sense to link directly to the publisher page when talking about it; second, the awards page provides a citation for the book's award other than the subject's own webpage.Dithie (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • no Declined per WP:ELNO item 1. Stifle (talk) 08:34, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stifle (or anyone else) can you explain how these links apply to WP:ELNO item 1? It's unclear to me, having read the linked list. How should I provide a citation for my claim that the book won an award otherwise?Dithie (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.change.org/p/harper-collins-india-in-view-of-the-widespread-plagiarism-found-in-rajiv-malhotra-s-book-indra-s-net-published-by-harper-collins-india-we-call-on-the-publisher-to-make-a-formal-public-apology-and-to-withdraw-the-book-from-the-market?

    Please whitelist this link from Change.org as it provides documentary evidence of plagiarism in two books by Hindu evangelist Rajiv Malhotra who is also a member of RSS (termed a terrorist organization). This would help me add a "plagiarism charges" section to the article on Malhotra's book Indra's Net and substantiate the charges with evidence present in the link. Thanks. -Mohanbhan (talk) 04:29, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment - a change.org petition is NOT a reliable source for providing evidence of plagiarism and should not ever be used for such a serious claim. There is no oversight / editorial control over the text of the petition. You need to find such claims in a good reliable source. Change.org is not, nor ever will be, that source. Ravensfire (talk) 14:23, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand that a petition may not be RS but did you check the link? The petition contains links to a series of images from Imagur which shows how the text has been lifted from mostly Andrew Nicholson's Unifying Hinduism and a couple of other sources. It is not the petition itself which will be used as evidence but Imagur images comparing Nicholson and others' texts with those of Malhotra present in the petition. -Mohanbhan (talk) 14:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    sysoon.com

    sysoon.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 website was blacklisted a few years ago - including regex term "sysoon" ( globally blacklisted by \bsysoon\b ) becose there is more international websites worldwide sysoon.com, sysoon.uk, sysoon.be, sysoon.de, etc... Please check if blacklist is necessary anymore, becose there is many userful information to use: Funeral and cemeteries resource, more languages suport, easy and fast research. My research show that new owner is not using any bad practices from 2012 to 2015 - WebbyAwards honoree, or see article Article: The rise of the e-funeral.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.212.54.54 (talk • contribs)

    @88.212.54.54: - Which specific link do you want to use (leave off the http:// and the link will save) and on which specific page does it have its use? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:06, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Not done due to lack of reply. Stifle (talk) 15:44, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    goodingcountyhistoricalsociety.shutterfly.com/obituariesforgoodingcounty

    shutterfly.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 specific page would be helpful on the Wikipedia:List of online newspaper archives page because it has an obituary index for Gooding County, Idaho for 1946-1947 and 1980-2011. The site belongs to the Gooding County Historical Society. JaniceMSJ (talk) 08:24, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • How is this a reliable source? Stifle (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm not sure how to establish its reliability because that is generally not considered a problem in the genealogical community. It is common for genealogical societies to create indices of records such as deaths and obituaries to aid researchers in finding information about their relatives. The reliability of the indices is accepted. Based on my experience with using finding aids created by other societies, I see no reason to think that the index files are inaccurate or have any malware. I have tested some of the files and found no problems. The Web site of the Gooding County Historical Society is similar to those of other genealogical societies, except that it happens to be hosted on Shutterfly. JaniceMSJ (talk) 08:11, 27 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Infibeam.com

    infibeam.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 sites appears to have been blacklisted following the use of the site during a spam campaign, however, OTRS has received an email asking for the homepage to be added to Infibeam. Can the homepage only be added to the whitelist to allow use? Mdann52 (talk) 12:47, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Per /Common requests, we need an about-page (generally preferred) or an index.htm, we can not only whitelist the main domain as that would negate the blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:02, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: will www.infibeam.com/index.html be ok? Mdann52 (talk) 18:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.595facts.com

    This is the official website of Stand U.P., a group supporting a lawsuit by the Marquette County Road Commission against the United States Environmental Protection Agency regarding the proposed County Road 595. The article already has external links from Save the Wild U.P. and the Keweenaw Bay Indiana Community, groups opposed to the road, so for balance now that there is an official website for a non-governmental group supporting the road, that link should be included for balance. The link is globally blacklisted by \b\d+\w+facts?\.com\b . Imzadi 1979 → 08:10, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    teeuwynnwoodruff.hubpages.com/hub/Rob-Cesternino-and-Rob-Has-a-Podcast

    I am trying to create a page about Rob Has a Podcast (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rob_Cesternino) and would like to use this as a source, as it has a detailed history of the podcast. It would also be good to use on the Rob Has a Podcast section of the Rob Cesternino page. Hub Pages has been blacklisted. AlicePotter 16:03, 16 July 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alicepotter (talk • contribs)

    Information on the page is cited as being compiled from Cesternino's official webpage, robhasawebsite.com . I can't find any mistakes or inaccuracies when comparing the two websites. --AlicePotter 19:56, 23 July 2015 (UTC)

    Examiner.com article on a Fiat

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

    www.examiner.com/article/retro-car-revew-1979-1982-fiat-strada-fiat-s-end-of-the-road

    This link was already in the article, I just followed it, read it, and found this particular entry to be without any faults worth mentioning. A whitelisting would be useful for Fiat Ritmo.  Mr.choppers | ✎  01:17, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Three Google CSEs

    • cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=004797186867496047826:1nnbom_igns (art RS)
    • cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=004797186867496047826:coodxrnfwsm (music RS)
    • cse.google.com/cse/publicurl?cx=004797186867496047826:rxardw9mwz0 (tech RS)

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

    In keeping with the precedent to whitelist Google custom search engines that would be helpful in project/userspace (while keeping the general domain blacklisted to avoid spam and trickery), I'd like my three custom engines that search specific kinds of reliable sources to be whitelisted, please. As of now, I can't easily link to the search in my drafts or at AfD, where it would be most useful. – czar 07:31, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Linking to the examples of past precedent to hopefully speed up this req: [3][4] Not being used in mainspace, not being used with any revenue-generating schemes, I'm a trusted user, etc. @Beetstra – czar 17:45, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    teluguone.com

    sir teluguone.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 is the only major resource which is available on internet for Telugu related articles on all categories and more over it is a very old website sir and a prestigious website . It is looking like someone's deliberate attempt to get it on to the blacklist by a throw away accounts .. Please guide me procedure for removal of this url from spam list — Preceding unsigned comment added by Queendivz (talk • contribs)

    • As can be seen here Queendivz is one of the spammers that got teluguone.com blacklisted, and hardly the right person to request whitelisting. A request by the same user to remove the site from the blacklist has also just been declined. Thomas.W talk 11:10, 28 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Denied Stifle (talk) 15:41, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    companydirectorcheck.com

    1. It allows us to use valuable informations about companies based in the UK
    2. East Asia TV to reference his birthday
    3. companydirectorcheck.com/ash-lawliet

    Iady391 | Talk to me here 16:57, 30 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Stifle: Thanks. Would you be able to help me incorporate the piece of information from the official website? Iady391 | Talk to me here 21:51, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, I'm not in a position to do that. Try WP:RSN or WP:HD. Stifle (talk) 15:46, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    typography.guru

    typography.guru: 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

    Reposted from blacklist removals

    How can the site be useful This could be (and no doubt will be) described pejoratively as "a blog site", but it's by someone, Ralf Herrmann, who is WP:RS in the field of typography and particularly usability as it applies to typography. Typography.guru was launched in February 2015, but it's really more of a split of an existing site for English language coverage, away from his main German language site at http://Typografie.info

    Why it should not be blacklisted It has just been swept in the bulk addition [5] of *.guru to the blacklist.

    I'm actually rather saddened to see that moments after he had blacklisted it, JzG then removed an EL from the X-height article (of course that conveniently prevents anyone else restoring it). A ref he had previously twice removed (it has been added by two independent editors) as "The .guru domain is blogs ans orherr such unreliable sources. feel free to cite him in a reliable source." The implication being that a RS stops being RS if they publish through a particular TLD, which is nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:59, 29 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    For what it's worth, I think that Andy is right: Although the guru tld is ridiculous, this particular site appears to pass WP:SPS and its material has been used and useful. (I do take issue with the characterization of an author as a "reliable source" as that's not at all how we define reliability in this project but that's irrelevant.) ElKevbo (talk) 16:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    This is precisely why we have the whitelist. Guy (Help!) 21:48, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The point is that he's an RS beforehand, because of a whole career outside WP and outside this site as an authority on typeface design. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:44, 1 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Mixcloud (Mixcloud.com/ne1fmharrysmith)

    mixcloud.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

    • mixcloud.com/ne1fmharrysmith

    Why it should be whitelisted This page should be whitelisted as it would be useful as a reference on two of my draft Wikipedia articles that are coming out soon, and as proof that the articles are genuine.

    What articles would it be useful on? Again, it would be useful on my upcoming articles about Harry Smith (Radio Presenter), and an article about his show on the radio. The only issue is, that his show is soon changing name, and this link will also change as well, so if it gets whitelisted now, the link will change soon and be blacklisted again. Hazzyjam (talk) 12:49, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    I've taken a look at both Draft:Harry Smith (Radio Presenter) and The James Cowen Radio Show, the two articles created by you (because this edit makes me believe you're both Hazzyjam and Hazzy6000), and neither of them passes the threshold of notability here on Wikipedia, i.e. neither of the subjects qualifies for having an article here (see Wikipedia's general notability guideline). And being able to add the link on mixcloud to the article isn't going to change that, since it's not a reliable source by Wikipedia's standards. And neither are the links to Facebook, Twitter and the local radiostation itself that are the only sources in your draft/article. Thomas.W talk 13:28, 2 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    nambla.org

    nambla.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

    • nambla.org
    • nambla.org/welcome.html
    • nambla.org/ginsberg.html
    • nambla.org/hayonmanboylove.html
    • nambla.org/pederasty.html

    Why it should be whitelisted: Deferred from blacklist "for reasons that should be obvious", despite no evidence of widescale spamming (other than a Fox News article), and that Wikipedia in other languages allows the page to be linked. These URLs are all already in use (except the top one), albeit using {{code}} or WebCite.

    What articles should it be used on? Any article which already links the page via {{code}}, WebCite, the Wayback Machine or other way of circumventing the filter. As of now, these are the pages I could find:

    Thank you. – Zumoarirodoka(talk)(email) 19:11, 6 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    avoiceformen.com Roosh V Interview

    Why it should be whitelisted

    For use per WP:BLPSELFPUB, on the Roosh V

    What articles should it be used on?

    Roosh V

    Just realised I forgot to sign this. Sorry. Brustopher (talk) 23:16, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @Brustopher: One does not need something because a person published it himself, you need it to attribute something, because it is a good source for something that is in a Wikipedia article. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:37, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: What are you talking about? Per WP:BLPSELFPUB this would be a perfectly legitimate use of such a source. It's worth noting that I brought it up on the article's talk page and no one objected.Brustopher (talk) 08:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Brustopher: We do only whitelist links because one can show a reason why they need to be used (generally, because they contain information that can not be found on other sources), we do not whitelist 'just' because it is a perfectly legitimate use of such a source. Moreover, although self published sources are fine, sources that contain the same information that are not self published are always better. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:51, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra: Apologies, I just realised I explained this really badly. I'm using this to source Roosh's ethnicity. No reliable sources cover his ethnicity, but people keep on adding ethnicity categories to the article. Easiest way to solve this problem would be to whitelist these articles. They could also be potentially used to source other personal information about Roosh should it be appropriate. Brustopher (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added to whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:32, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    change.org

    change.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

    Requesting its use specifically for article Ben Rattray, founder of the website in question. Site is blacklisted because people like to use Wikipedia to promote individual petitions on the site, but it is obviously of encyclopedia interest for article on man mainly known for the site. Link is only to site's front page, not to any individual cause or petition. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:07, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    @NatGertler: - It is not the official link of Ben Rattray, it is the official link of Change.org. For the latter I could agree to have it whitelisted, but we need an 'about.htm' or an 'index.htm' (or similar), we can not whitelist the main domain as that would negate the blacklisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:39, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    nashvillesounds.shutterfly.com

    nashvillesounds.shutterfly.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

    Requesting whitelisting for use at Herschel Greer Stadium. This is a Shutterfly account belonging the MFP Baseball LLC, which owns the Nashville Sounds minor league baseball team that played Herschel Greer Stadium. The photographs show what the stadium looked like before and after the group bought the team and made major improvements to the ballpark. These images help convey the rundown state of the stadium. They also illustrate parts of the closed stadium for which free images are not available. NatureBoyMD (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    alfredgescheidt.shutterfly.com

    shutterfly.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

    Requesting whitelisting for use on Alfred Gescheidt. This Shutterfly account appears to belong to Gescheidt's son. Gescheidt was a professional photographer and most if not all of these photographs are not available elsewhere online. The page is cited twice in the article. HazelAB (talk) 19:09, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.examiner.com/About_Examiner

    Request whitelisting for use as official website on Examiner.com, per MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist/Common_requests#The_official_homepage_of_the_subject_of_a_page. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 23:10, 11 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.sgs.com

    Requesting whitelisting of the home page of the SGS website. I'm from SGS and I noticed that this link is blacklisted on the Wikipedia page describing our company at SGS_S.A.. However, it's simply a link to our home page, which is a suitable reference for this Wikipedia page, which serves to provide a factual introduction to our website. www.sgs.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 - Andy 217.110.101.138 (talk) 15:53, 12 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.bible-history.com/sketches/ancient/wine-press.html

    bible-history.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 Requesting whitelisting for use on History of the wine press. This page contains relevant information regarding the historical significance of the wine press in the Bible and ancient times. It also provides a unique image/sketch which depicts a basin that was used to tread grapes and collect juice. This page has a compilation of verses which mention wine presses, thus providing additional context to view the wine press in ancient history which is relevant for anyone researching the topic. 67.1.218.172 (talk) 22:06, 12 August 2015 (UTC)Spencer[reply]

    web.archive.org/web/20070806181331/http://www.rtnda.org/resources/speeches/rather3.shtml

    This link at the Internet Archive is used on the article Paul White (journalist). It has been used since May 25, 2014, as a citation for the content of the 1997 acceptance speech by journalist Dan Rather when he received the Paul White Award from the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA). There is no archived copy of the speech on the current RTDNA website, but the speech was saved at the Internet Archive. Rather's speech, in which he discusses Paul White, is quoted in the Paul White article. No other copy of it can be found, so the link is needed. — WFinch (talk) 15:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    web.archive.org/web/20040206185545/http://www.rtnda.org/communicator/bliss_communicator.shtml

    This link at the Internet Archive is used on the article Ed Bliss. It has been used since May 29, 2014, as a citation for the content of an interview with Bliss conducted by the Radio Television Digital News Association (RTDNA). There is no archived copy of the interview on the current RTDNA website, but the interview was saved at the Internet Archive. The interview is used to cite biographical content in the Ed Bliss article, so the link is needed. FYI, the article has additional links to the Internet Archive copy of the site that were not flagged. — WFinch (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.game-guru.com

    GameGuru is The Game Creators, Ltd.'s new name for FPS Creator. They're a notable producer of game creation software, with several of their products having Wikipedia articles (DarkBASIC, The 3D Game Maker, App Game Kit).

    The link should be unblocked because it is a false positive in a sense: the site is entirely legitimate and is not spam. The site is that of one of TGC's flagship products which they are notable for, so it would benefit Wikipedia readers to be able to visit it to find out more information about the product.

    Thus, I ask that it be unblocked so that the company's Wikipedia page can link to the website. —ajf (talk) 01:10, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    www.avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet_spread/

    Links to a petition of the org regarding ACTA, linked to on ACTA L.tak (talk) 22:19, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    http://agora.guru.ru/display.php?conf=DOGtale&page=conference&PHPSESSID=b1b649f7259bfdd9b37df3a31bd0fb5f

    I honestly don't see why that article (or site for that matter) would be blacklisted. It looks like the site of a conference in memory of Grigori Kuzmin, i.e. a perfectly legitimate website. One of the authors of that biography is a respected astronomer with his own Wikipedia article as well: Jaan Einasto. Banedon (talk) 01:11, 14 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    rtnda gwen ifill

    @Duckduckstop: - I don't know where you want to go, but that does not go to a speech archive, rather a 404. The mainpage of rtnda.org is selling something drug-like. Maybe it was a good site, it appears is now not anymore. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:45, 17 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Approved requests

    Approved requests

    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]

    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]

    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]

    Utility Warehouse

    I am trying to update the address for the UK's sixth largest energy company, the Utility Warehouse. They are a FTSE listed company. Historically, customers were able to create subdirectories on this site and this led to abuse. This is no longer the case and spam abuse will no longer be an issue. --Sspyrou (talk) 12:54, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    formatting fixed. Mdann52 (talk) 12:31, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sspyrou:. This was SEO-spammed with some other domains back in 2007 (I am not sure if it were just customers spamming). We could consider a de-list after this time ( Defer to Local blacklist (we'd have to see whether it really stopped then) or we need a specific index-page or about-page (full url) to be whitelisted. The latter may be preferred in case of SEO spamming ... --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:37, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I have my doubts as to whether this is a good faith request. Also, you have closed the deblacklisting request as defer here so you have a loop. MER-C 11:44, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The loop did not occur to me (I struck the referral back) - however, I think that my latter suggestion is preferred. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:. Thanks Dirk. The specific index-page URL for whitelisting is www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/. N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here. I'm confident that there there will be no third party spamming moving forward as members no longer have their own profile URLs.

    I'd also like to quote a message from their Head of Communications; "Please be reassured that we have a very strict anti-spam policy, and dismiss any distributors that are responsible for spam. We’ve really ramped up our monitoring and policing of this, and would be confident that the past issues are unlikely to repeat themselves son such a scale. Wikipedia will be one of the primary sites we monitor and police." 

    What do I need to do next? Thanks again. --Sspyrou (talk) 20:46, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Sspyrou: We can not whitelist the home domain, we will only whitelist the about-page (preferred) or possibly an index.htm-like page. SEO spamming is not instigated by the SEO company, it is instigated by the owners of a site - they were responsible for the spamming, and as this site has no wide-use, I oppose removal from blacklists or blanket-whitelisting of the whole domain. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:47, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:. Thanks. Here you are: www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/index.html (N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here.) I will drive home that they are expected to police this well both internally and externally. --Sspyrou (talk) 19:50, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    @Beetstra:. Re whitelisting the specific home page www.utilitywarehouse.co.uk/index.html is there anything else that I or the owners can do in good faith to help this case? The current team behind this domain are entirely different to the one that got it blacklisted and they are will to give any assurances that they will be better guardians. (N.B. I have inserted and extra space before the TLD in order to be able to save it here.). --Sspyrou --Sspyrou (talk) 09:41, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:18, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Denied requests

    Requests that were withdrawn, stale, or otherwise disposed of

    Requests for blocked URLs to be whitelisted in order to transclude them

    The following requests are for whitelisting of pages in order to transclude them onto "all on one page" Wikipedia Signpost editions. There is no need to whitelist them as the links can simply be placed without HTTP or with the nowiki tag in order to save them. However, if it is absolutely indispensable to have the links, I am open to whitelisting them for 24 hours only so that the pages can be saved; as they are unlikely to change in the future, the links will be removed from the whitelist thereafter. Stifle (talk) 09:49, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    www.change.org/p/lila-tretikov-remove-new-superprotect-status-and-permit-wikipedia-communities-to-enact-current-software-decisions-uninhibited

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

    This link was used in Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-09-10/Op-ed but when I went to creating Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2014-09-10, I found that I had to remove the link in order to save the new page. Since there didn't seem to be a problem with this link when it was included in this Signpost article when it was published, I'd like to get the okay to undo my deletion and add it back into the article. Liz Read! Talk! 14:23, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or nowiki the link so that it saves. Stifle (talk) 08:23, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    search.twitter.com/search?q=WikipediaFundraisingSlogans

    search.twitter.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 was used in this 2009 article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/Fundraiser, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the November 9, 2009 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-09/SPV. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2009-11-02/SPV.

    I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:40, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or place nowiki tags around the link. Stifle (talk) 08:33, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    search.twitter.com/search?q=%23wikipediasurvive

    search.twitter.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 was used in this 2010 article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-03-15/News and notes, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the March 15, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-03-15. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-03-08.

    I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 17:49, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    search.twitter.com/search?q=glamwiki

    search.twitter.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 was used in this 2010 article, Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-13/Rencontres Wikimédia, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the December 13, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-13. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the previous week's issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-06.

    I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    search.twitter.com/search?max_id=16810037871644673&page=3&q=state+library+of+queensland

    This link was used in this 2010 article, WWikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2010-12-20/Image donation, before it was blacklisted. I'm now trying to create a single-page version of the December 20, 2010 Signpost issue and this section needs to transclude with the other articles in this edition but I can't create it because of the Twitter link. I also can not just omit this article, the template includes all articles published that week or the page will not be created. The eventual page will be Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-20. So you can see what it will eventually look like, here is the next week's issue: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/Single/2010-12-27.

    I'm trying to create a complete, organized archive of Signpost articles since it has been continuously published for over 10 years and I would like to create this page if you will whitelist this link. Thank you. Liz Read! Talk! 19:33, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Suggest you simply remove the HTTP or nowiki the link so that it saves. Stifle (talk) 08:22, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

    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]

    Old requests still in the "Proposed additions" list

    Hi, is there a good reasons why requests that have been processed, such as MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist#tanners-wines.co.uk, are still in the section "Proposed additions"? Wouldn't it be more adequate to move them to the "Approved" or "Denied" sections? --a3nm (talk) 20:01, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • Only because nobody has archived or moved them. Feel free to do so. Stifle (talk) 10:34, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    Ignorant question

    Is there a way to whitelist something for use only within a particular namespace?  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:08, 22 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    • No. If something like this were desired the only way around it would be whitelisting + an edit filter. Stifle (talk) 09:37, 10 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

    The article Tom Clough has a link to some photographs of chanters made by Clough, placed by Andy May on shutterfly. That site has been blacklisted, though it is clear that the relevant page is innocuous. Can an exception be made, at least from this page? I doubt if any other page would need to point there.John Gibbons 3 (talk) 20:13, 13 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]


    Other projects with active whitelists
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=MediaWiki_talk:Spam-whitelist&oldid=676491079"