MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Archives (current)→

The associated 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 section title, like === === .
  2. The Wikipedia page that you want to use the link on.
  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, confirmation that you have read the reason why requests regarding the site are commonly denied and that you are happy to proceed.

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 this page). Requests quoting only a domain (i.e. ending in .com or similar without anything after the / character) will be denied. If you wish to have a site fully unblocked it would need to be listed in the relevant section of MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist.

You will not be notified when your request has been responded to, even if you ask. You should 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 about the request, as failure to reply to these promptly will generally result in your request being summarily denied.

Completed requests are archived, additions and removal are logged. →snippet for logging: {{/request|893154909#section_name}}

Note that requests from new and unregistered users are not usually considered.

Admins: use seth's tool to search the spamlists.

Request completed:
 Done {{Done}}
 Stale {{StaleIP}}
 Request withdrawn {{withdrawn}}
Request declined:
 Declined {{Declined}}
Not done {{Notdone}}
 Additional information needed {{MoreInfo}}
 Note: {{TakeNote}}

Notice to everyone about our Reliable sources and External links noticeboards[edit]

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)[edit]

UK parliament petition website on[edit]

I'm trying to add the correct number of total signatures for a list on UK Parliament petitions website. It's a petition from 2007 and the current BBC reference shows a total of 1.7 million signatures. However, as the archived page demonstrates, it increased to 1,811,414. I can't find the final number elsewhere. I read /Common requests but this petition ended more than 12 years ago, so WP:SOAP shouldn't apply. Johndavies837 (talk) 21:15, 21 March 2019 (UTC)

@Johndavies837: plus Added to whitelist, though I don't know how an already closed petition can increase with such a significant number. --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:52, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

Jaw-dropping liberal bias -[edit]

The community chooses and a quick search would have shown you this. WP:BREITBART. Praxidicae (talk) 16:08, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This should not be a surprise. WP:V is policy, and a site with a reputation for making things up and disguising them as news has no place here. Bradv🍁 16:12, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lingzhi2: note that plenty of sources on the left are also banned and deprecated (e.g. Occupy Democrats). Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 16:20, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Well then, call me a fuckhead. While you're at it, does "Wikipedia Editors Paid to Protect Political, Tech, and Media Figures" on Breitbart get banned too? ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 16:31, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
Did you read the actual discussion and sanctions? It will answer your question. Praxidicae (talk) 16:33, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
This section, "Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)", is not the section you're looking for. If you want to overturn the strong consensus at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard/Archive 248 § RfC: Breitbart, you'll need to do so with another RfC on the reliable sources noticeboard. — Newslinger talk 11:43, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
@Lingzhi2: although not technically a whitelist request:  Declined. If there are specific links that you feel pass the bar of our sourcing requirements you can ask for them to be whitelisted. For overturning the blacklisting, you'll need full community consensus (i.e. an RfC in favour of de-listing). --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:48, 29 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

RebelMouse is a now very popular enterprise CMS platform. We used to allow users to create sites and publish content for free but spammers abused this. We have removed all offending content and also shut down that ability. Please consider unlisting us from the spam blockers are an honest, genuine company. AndreaBreanna (talk) 21:15, 25 March 2019 (UTC) wiki/User:AndreaBreanna

@AndreaBreanna: Defer to Local blacklist (but note that sites are hardly ever removed on requests by site owners). --Dirk Beetstra T C 18:36, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

It is of interest to the outsource/offshore Wiki content that the back of some envelopes, of which millions are mailed each month, contain "100% U.S.-Based Customer Service" and the best citation I've found (including matters of formatting/presentation) is
TITLE=Dis... (so as not to get into WP:ADVERT territory)

I arrived here (indirectly) via Wiki's Help_desk

to which I supplied
Dr. Google found 3 Wall Street Journal citations for Nerdwallet (2011, 2015, 2016). Is there something that happened since 2016 which is the basis of the blacklisting, and if so, is it still current? ~~~~

If it's not too much trouble (beyond whitelisting the above citation), can you give me a summary of why/when was blacklisted? Pi314m (talk) 09:13, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

Pi314m, this is a native advertising company (and that was the reason that a whole bunch of them were blacklisted), that basically reiterates what the company is presenting to them. Do you want to use this on a page about this credit card (then a primary source may be better ..), on any other page I doubt that this is even close to a reliabel source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:53, 29 March 2019 (UTC)

European censorship petitions on[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

The signpost would like to use this link in the next "News and notes" piece regarding the EU copyright directive. Ping @Smallbones, the new Editor-in-Chief and the author of the piece.

Thanks, --DannyS712 (talk) 04:11, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Well I just found MediaWiki talk:Spam-whitelist/Common requests, which says that Requests to link to petition sites will, in all but exceptional cases, be summarily denied. - hopefully this qualifies as an exceptional case - its not being used in an article, but rather in Wikipedia's own reporting about a current news story. --DannyS712 (talk) 04:13, 31 March 2019 (UTC)
  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

Likewise for the "In focus" piece. again. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 06:51, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@DannyS712: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:32, 31 March 2019 (UTC)[edit]

For subject official website. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:58, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

@Beetstra: plus Added to MediaWiki:Spam-whitelist. --Dirk Beetstra T C 04:59, 31 March 2019 (UTC) on[edit]

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted:
  • Link requested to be whitelisted:


I am in the midst of writing a page about the online gambling website bustabit. All of the official announcements made by the two prior owners (Eric Springer, Ryan Havar) and the current owner (Daniel Evans) have been made on the forum, which is a blacklisted site. I understand that is a forum and is generally filled with biased and uncited information. However, in this specific scenario, official announcements regarding the website have been made on (and exclusively on) this forum. I am submitting the archive links to the respective bitcointalk announcements so the actual announcements can be preserved, and any comments that are added on later aren't included in the source.

I'd like these links whitelisted since there is very little data online about bustabit and provably fair gambling sites in general, and this is the only reliable source. Although the website itself is not reliable, the people themselves who are making the specific posts I linked to are. Thus, I would like you to consider whitelisting those specific archived links I submitted above so I can proceed with publishing the article. Many thanks!

Goditor (talk) 14:47, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[edit]

Please release this page in the official website, for inclusion in Soka University of America. While I have another source to corroborate my writing, I would like to cite the number of people who signed this petition on In addition, this petition is referenced in the article I cited in my writing, so it has been referenced before within an approved cite. StormWombat868 (talk) 8:30, 11 April 2019 (PDT)Stormbat868 (talk)

I'm not sure if NextShark (which is the sole reference for this petition) is a reliable source. I've started a noticeboard discussion at WP:RSN § NextShark ( for Soka University of America to confirm. — Newslinger talk 09:52, 12 April 2019 (UTC)

"News" and "Reviews" sections of The Points Guy (,[edit]

Requesting the whitelisting of the "News" ( and "Reviews" ( sections of The Points Guy, per the RfC discussion on RSN. This was discussed previously here, but the discussion was archived. feminist (talk) 13:20, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

@Feminist: as in the discussion on the blacklist: I agree that there are voices in the RfC showing that there is good material there, but this was blacklisted because of 'native advertising', and the conclusion of the RfC is "Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located", which does not give me the feeling that all material that is not 'hell no' is generally usable for Wikipedia - the tone of that discussion is certainly not 'anything but all material related to credit cards is useful without any precautions'. The combination of the native advertising with the general reservations makes me careful for blanket whitelisting. Seen that in more than 2 weeks there has been only one attempt to add this material to any page outside of primary points suggests that all of these can easily be handled by individual whitelisting of that source.
Just as a note:, which would be allowed to link if we were to grant this whitelisting, is a review of a credit card (the url gets rewritten). Secondly, shows as disclaimer 'This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products.' which is, clearly, not neutral, but hints at native advertising for non-credit-card material. Yes, there is useful material on the site, but that seems to be rather limited. --Dirk Beetstra T C 14:06, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
There are suggestions to implement an edit filter to warn users trying to cite the source, but ultimately allow them to cite it. A blacklist is clearly a less extreme measure than requiring individual links to be whitelisted, so any editor supporting Options 1 to 3 in that discussion should be seen as opposing the blacklisting of content. I am not seeing any support for blacklisting the whole site here. Pinging RfC participants @Slatersteven, Collect, Newslinger, JzG, MarkH21, EllenCT, Barkeep49, Markbassett, Peter K Burian, and Winged Blades of Godric: Should The Points Guy remain on the spam blacklist, or should parts of the website be whitelisted? feminist (talk) 14:24, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: That is, just like on the blacklist, not a response to my concerns, and does not address the reason why it was blacklisted. The RSN discussion is completely loose from that, and the RfC does not address the blacklisting in the first place, it addresses the reliability of parts of the website. Consensus that it can be reliable sometimes does not equal consensus to de-blacklist since it does not address the same concerns.
Whitelisting the /reviews part completely includes whitelisting the 'hell no' credit card reviews (and per the consensus in the RfC, I would suggest to decline that part), and negates the reason it was blacklisted in the first place: much of that site is advertising. Moreover, what hole do you want to open if we are talking 1 link in >2 weeks (do I have to stat further back?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 15:16, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
I understand your concerns, they are valid but they do not overrule the opinions of other editors if they disagree that blacklisting is inappropriate. "1 link in >2 weeks" assumes that all editors who try and fail to cite the source know how to and choose to ask for whitelisting, which is unlikely to be the case, not that many editors are bothered to go through the whole process of asking to whitelist the link, waiting for the link to be whitelisted, then adding the link as a source. We should not make it excessively difficult for editors to cite a source.
My response to your concerns would be: 1. "This post contains references to products from one or more of our advertisers. We may receive compensation when you click on links to those products." seems to appear on every post regardless of whether it actually contains links to products. That is not in and of itself a hint at native advertising at every post. 2. The concerns with native advertising have been acknowledged at the RfC discussion, but editors ultimately did not consider these issues to warrant blacklisting of the whole source. At the RfC, I mentioned BuzzFeed and PopSugar as two Internet properties that also contain a lot of native advertising, yet continue to be accepted as sources on Wikipedia, with no suggestion of spam blacklisting. feminist (talk) 15:30, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
The original concern included '... these are the most egregiously spammed ones ... '. Secondly, again, whitelisting the /reviews/ part of the site allows also the 'hell no' credit card reviews. Thirdly, an RSN discussion is about reliability, not about that it is/was being spammed. Fourth point is, that I am not discussing one person who comes here in 2 weeks discussing, I am discussing one attempted addition in 2 weeks. So no, I am not assuming that only one editor in hundreds of editors who tried to add this bothered to whitelist, I am talking about 1 editor in 17 days (who, indeed, maybe not bothered to whitelist). (parsing on, I get to 4 attempted additions in 40 days, indeed none of them bothered to request whitelisting; only 1 of the 4 by 'regulars', and for the last two I checked the editors found better sources; the last 2 were for news sources, not /reviews or /guide).
The way I read the RfC, most editors agreed that this should not be blacklisted based on its reliability, but that was not the concern that resulted in the blacklisting. And that other, maybe similar, sites are not blacklisted is because we do not blacklist sites based on their content (with exceptions that there is a clear community consensus that a site should be blacklisted based on content, a 'hell no' closure on a part is such a community consensus), we blacklist because .. something is spammed.
If anything, only the /news part could maybe get whitelisted, but frankly, I do not see why we would bother doing that as most of that is also available from better sources. --Dirk Beetstra T C 16:05, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
If someone is spamming links to this website, block the user. If promotional content is added to articles citing the website as a source, remove the entire content. Don't make it needlessly difficult for good-faith editors to cite the source. Your job is not to judge editor opinions based on your own interpretations or views. If you are unable to set aside your own preconceptions, you have no business denying someone of such a request. I feel like I've been talking to a brick wall. feminist (talk) 16:54, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
In addition, I'd note that credit card reviews being allowed under the /reviews URL was not a concern at the RfC. If you feel that this would affect the views of editors you are welcome to raise this point in a new discussion at RSN or similar; however in the meantime it does not affect whether the website should be whitelisted or not. feminist (talk) 17:10, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: oh, that one again .. 'If someone is spamming links to this website, block the user' .. this is not someone, I see a plethora of IPs (some of them rather close together) and a rather high number of red-linked users (which often suggests 'new' users). You want to block all of those with all the collateral damage it gives? Do you really think that when someone posts something that is 'egregiously spammed' that other options have not been considered. 'Don't make it needlessly difficult for good-faith editors to cite the source' .. WHO. I see 4 attempted additions in 40 days, of which a least 2 of them had perfectly other sources. I can return that with the exact same 'Don't make it needlessly difficult for good-faith spam-fighters to fight spam and keep our material in an optimal shape'. Are YOU going to check every addition from here to see whether there is better sourcing. This is a site where at least a third of the material is plainly not to be used (as per RfC) AT ALL, and you want to enable that material being used. And again, I have 4 addition in 40 days (which in itself can already be perfectly handled by the whitelist, if needed (and the two for which I checked did not need it)) of which most are on the /news part. I already have given you that I would be willing to do the /news part only, as the /reviews/-part is enabling linking to the hell no credit card reviews, does (often/sometimes/regularly/always/...) contain sponsored material as well, and is even less used.
It did not matter to the people in the RfC where the credit-card reviews are, they did not want to link to the credit card reviews. Moreover, ALL the credit card reviews are available through the /reviews/ tree of the site, not just a couple:;; - if you open the /reviews part, then you might just as well de-blacklist the whole site.
Now lets go a step further, shall we:
Below are the credit card companies who offer products that we have affiliate links for: American Express; Bancorp Bank; Bank of America; Barclays; Brex; Capital One; Chase; Citibank; Discover; Founders Card; MBNA Canada; Luxury Card; USAA; US Bank; Virgin America; Wells Fargo
That is clear, those are all the credit cards. But that continues:
We also have affiliate relationships with companies who sell products that are not related to credit cards. Those companies include: Airbnb; Amazon; Apple; Away Luggage; CLEAR; David’s Vacation Clubs; Emirates; Expedia; Expert Flyer;; iTunes; Plastiq; (my bolding)
... includes ... so even if the review is NOT a credit card, it may still be heavily sponsored. Then a significant part is influenced by links to sponsored content on the rest. I agree that this is not 'solely [of] sponsored content', but it looks like it is the far majority in the /reviews part.
My advice is still, maybe open the /news part through blanket whitelisting (though I, REALLY, do not see we need to with such a low frequency and high rate of replaceability), and do anything else through selective whitelisting. --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:28, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Then whitelist the /news part first, it at least helps solve part of the problem. feminist (talk) 06:00, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: what 'problem' ... ?? I still fail to see the problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:30, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Can you please whitelist the /news part, as you just described? Thanks. feminist (talk) 06:31, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: I said, My advice is still, maybe open the /news part through blanket whitelisting (though I, REALLY, do not see we need to with such a low frequency and high rate of replaceability) (now with bolding). It was an advice, with a maybe, and a disclaimer that I do not see the need. So maybe you can describe to me what 'problem' you are trying to solve? --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:47, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Among the site's content, there is a general agreement that the News part is the most reliable (with a number of editors seeing the news articles as generally reliable for facts, citing mentions of them in reliable sources). Also, the News part contains the most amount of material that will be useful for citing facts. There is a general consensus at the RfC that the "News" section should not be blacklisted. An unwillingness to whitelist this part of the website is a WP:Supervote. feminist (talk) 06:57, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
───────────────────────── @Feminist: What supervote, I did not, in any form,  Declined (I have even suggested that maybe only the /news/ could be considered for whitelisting (though, again, I foresee no problems if we don't)), nor did any other admin  Declined - we are having a discussion whether we need to have this blacklisted with opposing views in this discussion. Again, this was blacklisted after a report claiming it was SPAMMED (as opposed to your statement that this was blacklisted because it 'consist solely of sponsored content' (where you omitted that this was one of the sites that were the 'most egregiously spammed ones'), now you want to bring an RfC on its RELIABILITY as a reason to overrule that? All of those people say that it should not be blacklisted BASED ON RELIABILITY (which, basically, we don't do anyway). And the conclusion of the !vote still reads Hell no for anything related to credit-cards. Use editorial discretion for usage in other areas and avoid if other sources can be located; The closer did not take into account any of those blacklisting related comments, it was not the question in the first place - the RfC is only asking for a statement on the reliability of the site, which has nothing to do with why it was blacklisted. Here we discuss whether the amount of spam that was received warrants keeping this on the blacklist, whether blacklisting this site is going to give a massive influx of whitelist requests so that other solutions may be better, and whether regulars so often run into the blacklist with this site while they are trying to cite information that cannot be replaced. We are now at 5 hits to the blacklist, 3 of them were replaced, and for the other 2, better sources are available.
Being (sometimes) a reliable source is NOT a reason to not be on the blacklist, and that is what you asked: 'Which of the following best describes the reliability of The Points Guy?' (my bolding). My point still is that I do not have a problem with whitelisting the /news/ site, but I do not see ANY problem not to. You think that having the /news/ part blacklisted is a 'problem', but until now you totally fail to describe what problem it is giving, can you show me a specific needed citation for which that news report from The Points Guy is absolutely not replaceable with better sources. I still believe, seeing that evidence, that this can very easily be blacklisted with case-by-case whitelisting of single links as I expressed earlier. Until then I see no reason why we need to blanket whitelist this (but if you can convince me, or another admin, of the opposite, then I will stand gladly corrected). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:19, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. This is in addition to the previous points I've mentioned. If you want an example, see Special:Diff/892989756. The Points Guy and Luchtvaart Nieuws are the only reliable non-self-published sources I can find covering Delta's 767-400ER business class retrofit. Per WP:RSUE, English-language sources are preferred over non-English language ones where they are of equal quality and relevance. Because the Luchtvaart Nieuws article itself cites The Points Guy as its source, we should cite the The Points Guy article instead. Is that enough for you? feminist (talk) 11:11, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
@Feminist: funny .. seems to say the opposite. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:55, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Both sources confirm that Delta is refitting new business class seats on their 767-400 fleet, but differ on whether these should be described as "suites" or not. They are seats that incorporate some of the design elements of the Delta One suites being installed on the airline's A350 and 777 fleets, but unlike these seats, the refitted 767-400 seats do not feature doors. If disregarding reliability, both sources support the statement To be refurbished with new business class seats beginning in 2019. In any case, Traveling for Miles is a blog (i.e. a self-published source) and should not be used as a reference. feminist (talk) 14:02, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Similar: . It are not the delta one suites, but the delta one seats, apparently. --Dirk Beetstra T C 13:59, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
Do you consider this to be a better source than the The Points Guy article? If yes, I think I can drop my request to whitelist TPG. Their advertising= policy is much more ethical than the one from TPG, because they specifically reject any monetary compensation affecting content or product placement. However, they operate closer to a blog than how TPG operates. Yet, none of this changes what I said above: Newslinger (who proposed the original blacklisting for "egregiously spammed") thinks that despite the concerns with spamming, the News section can be whitelisted; this means that, for the /news section at least, the concern with spam is less significant than the problem with blocking content that can be used as a source, otherwise he/she would not have proposed the whitelisting. Plus, it is absurd to suggest that editors who have previously triggered the blacklist by adding a TPG link would add another one, because they know that it would trigger the filter as well and would not waste their time. feminist (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2019 (UTC)
─────────────────────────As these sources all conflict, and all are blogs I consider this information not reliable. The only reliable source is likely the primary (which, in this case, is not a problem). So I still do not see any problem. --Dirk Beetstra T C 07:28, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

As I said at the RFC, I see obvious COI issues which makes then questionable for anything other then attributed opinion, and even then with care. I see no reason to lift any ban (what are we losing?), but equally no reason to have a blanket blacklist of it. But then it was not blacklisted for reasons of reliability, but of spamming. So no it should not be lifted.Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

Reliability formed at least part of Newslinger's concern when the site was initially blacklisted based on the (false, or at least incorrect) claim "Site contains solely of sponsored content" because we can all agree that sponsored content is usually unreliable on its own. I'd also note that even Newslinger thought that the News and Reviews sections should be whitelisted, despite the concerns with spam. feminist (talk) 17:09, 17 April 2019 (UTC)
Part of, but not solely. If it was being spammed then I see no reason to lift the block, even if there were otters well. If a man burgles my house but it can be proved did not kick my mouse that does not mean the conviction for burglery should be overturned.Slatersteven (talk) 12:17, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

User:Feminist - it seems a decent site, following journalism norms of being open about COI, so I’m in favour of whitelisting news and reviews. I really don’t see them as one of the worse sites out there for RS usage, advertisements are fairly common and any site should be used with caution, plus using this would seem infrequenr, so having this one particularly blacklisted seems a bit excessive. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Markbassett: As discussed above, both reviews of other material, and the reviews of credit cards are accessible through their /reviews/, so whitelisting that allows a part that was decided as not to be used at all. And again, you are addressing reliability, not the spamming that resulted in the blacklisting. This was NOT blacklisted because it is an unreliable source. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:45, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

gofundme link to cite current status of active campaign[edit] Linksearch en (https) - meta - de - fr - simple - wikt:en - wikt:frMER-C X-wiki • Reports: Links on en - COIBot - COIBot-Local • Discussions: tracked - advanced • COIBot-Link, Local, & XWiki Reports - Wikipedia: en - fr - de • Google: searchmeta • Yahoo: backlinks • Domain:

Previously requested on 13 March 2019 at 18:34 (UTC), this request was un-acted-upon (neither approved nor denied) prior to archival, so I'm renewing it. At my article draft (User:Fourthords/Rescue of the Sea Nymph) I'm trying to cite an unsuccessful GoFundMe campaign. My other reliable source(s) talk about the creation of the campaign and its rate of success at the time of publishing, but none discuss its current state, so I need to use the primary source. The specific link that's in my citation is as follows:

  • Link requested to be whitelisted:

Today it's my draft, though I plan to move it to rescue of Sea Nymph after this process. — fourthords | =Λ= | 21:14, 17 April 2019 (UTC)

@Fourthords: it does sound a bit like that whole campaign is not notable beyond it's creation. It does still seem to be open, which makes me more reluctant to whitelist it (but I don't decline at this point). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:22, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

Proposed removals from whitelist (sites to reblock)[edit]

removal of outdated uofa about page[edit]

  • Regex requested to be whitelisted: \buofa\.edu/aboutUs\.asp\?sec=aboutUs\b

outdated, replaced with new about. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:35, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

minus Removed. --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:36, 31 March 2019 (UTC)

Troubleshooting and problems[edit]